'palestine: peace not apartheid', and other strange things happening in america (1 Viewer)

[taubstumm]

here's a link about palestine: peace not apartheid, by jimmy carter. anyone read it? i haven't, but from what i've read about it, it seems to be saying a lot of stuff that's that's pretty controversial for an ex-u.s. president to be rabbitting on about (even if the points of view are pretty uncontroversial in the real world). from that link:

The book claims that Israel’s current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute “a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant, and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.”

that's pretty heavy stuff for an ex-pres, right?

and last week we had those well-known anarchist crazies, the iraq study group, saying that u.s. policy in the middle east should be based on 242 and 338... it's right there on page 39:

The only basis on which peace can be achieved is that set forth in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and in the principle of “land for peace.”

by way of context, that's the same position that people like noam chomsky and robert fisk hold, more or less.

and then of course there was the kerfuffle about the israel lobby and u.s. foreign policy (pdf here) earlier this year, with their contention that...

the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the “Israel Lobby.”

...which i don't actually agree with, but it's still a pretty controversial thing to be saying in the u.s. mainstream.

what's going on here? any ideas? any links to good explanations or analyses anywhere?

• theory #1: the groundwork is being laid for a realignment of the whole u.s.-israel best-buddies arrangement once bush is gone in 2008. they've fucked up iraq so badly that there might now be a regional war, and if that happens then the u.s. will simply no longer have the leverage to go on backing israel to the hilt; at some point, they'll crack.
• theory #2: people who are no longer in any kind of a position of power are now speaking out about stuff that they never gave a shit about when it mattered.
• theory #3: it's all a load of crazy stuff written by crazy people. all crazy. let's all just concentrate on the wonderful fledgling democracy in iraq, which is turning the corner.

 

[hugh]

I'd say it's most likely your theory #2 ....

I don't think that it's unusual for Israel or its supporters to adhere to the principle of "land for peace" but unfortunately I think it might be along the lines of "let us hold on to whatever parts of your land we feel like, without resisting in any way, and then you can have peace"

 

[taubstumm]

I'd say it's most likely your theory #2 ....

I don't think that it's unusual for Israel or its supporters to adhere to the principle of "land for peace" but unfortunately I think it might be along the lines of "let us hold on to whatever parts of your land we feel like, without resisting in any way, and then you can have peace"

yeah, i'd usually stick with the realistic-but-depressing option, but there seems to be some kind of groundswell of these types of opinions getting through to the mainstream at the moment... it might be nothing. but...