DeLay Says Palestinians Bear Burden for Achieving Peace

From the article:

Speaking a day after President Bush met at the White House with the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, Mr. DeLay said that Mr. Bush "made clear that the prospects of peace are the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority," which must "fight terror and dismantle terrorist capabilities."

Mr. Bush also urged Mr. Sharon to ease restrictions on Palestinians and to restrain Israel's own actions. Yet Mr. DeLay, while declaring that Palestinians "have been oppressed and abused," said that the culprit — and "their enemy" — was Yasir Arafat, not Israel.

"Israel is not the problem," he said. "Israel is the solution."

An evangelical Christian, Mr. DeLay is a leader in Washington of the Christian Zionist movement, a bloc of conservative Republicans whose strong support for the Jewish state is based on their interpretation of the Bible. Before leaving Washington for his trip to the region, Mr. DeLay was sharply critical of the international peace plan known as the road map, which envisions a Palestinian state alongside Israel in three years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/30/international/middleeast/30CND-MIDE.html

-------

Does anyone else here feel that it's not a good sign that a religious zealot like Delay would be welcomed to speak to members of the Israeli Parliament?

I would like to have a better understanding of what I see as a fanatic shift to the right by the Israeli public.

Dismantling terrorist capabilities should not be a difficult priority to understand.

What does that have to do with DeLay thinking in lock-step
with Zionists? This definitely goes against the best interests of this
country while fueling the ferocity of the Zionist hatred
of Palestinians. Very bad.

I see it the same way that I view the war on Iraq. We had them contained and were dismantling all of their threatening capabilities with the weapons inspectors. There was not a need to go to war.

In the case of Israel, they were very close to making peace with Barak in office. Sharon goes on his little crusade and all hell breaks loose. Suddenly, Barak is thrown out of office and Sharon gets solid support from Israeli's to go on his extreme rampage.

Is the Israeli public bombarded with right wing filth from the media like we are?

This is a six-volume autobiography of a Mr. (?) Ka'Tzetnik that was handed out as recommended reading on the Holocaust for Israeli high school students. The main character is a young woman who is made into a prostitute for German soldiers, with the "action" taking place at concentration camps. No doubt a heady brew - sex, death, pornography, anti-Semitism.

I learned about this from "War is a force that gives us meaning", a really good book by Chris Hedges.

!

it is the same break down those critical of Sharon policy or Israeli past policy are on the left or considered dissidents.

I am truly interested in your thoughts. Is the media in Israel considered right wing? I would just like some dialog here, I know that we will probably be in disagreement because I think that the military has gone to far. How do you feel?

DeLay is a tool.

It is chumps like him that cause the pro-Israeli view here in the United States to be sleighted.

Ardent Zionists, just like ardent Palestinian nationalists, need to be brought to heel. The settlers (who I identify with the Zionists) have to be put in check by the Israeli government and likewise any Hamas or al-Aqsa splinters who try to carry out attacks against Israeli targets need to be put in check by the Palestinian Authority.

Only if Israelis check Zionists and Palestinians check rejectionist Palestinians will there be hopes for peace in the Levant. Bigoted tools like DeLay and his ilk only serve to further poison the process.

Besides, "Christian Zionists?" Doesn't it bother Zionists even a little that these people only are interested in them if they convert to Christianity before/during the end of days? Otherwise these bigots are flamingly anti-Semetic since they believe the 2/3 who do not convert (which I would think would encompass most Zionists!) will die.

I disagree with your use of the term. I am an ardent Zionist. I believe in the existence of a state called Israel that is homeland for the Jews. That is what Zionists believe.

n/t

support the use of violence and terror on the opponent whose land you wish to seize from them? That is how the goals of Zionism have been achieved since day one, of course -- so I'm wondering what your take on the aggression and violence is.

When have I advocated anything of the like? I am a Zionist. I support a Jewish state in Israel. That is the extent of my Zionism.

do you support the aggression and murder that have been the trademark tools of Zionism in seizing the land needed to make a Jewish state in Israel?

not to make a Jewish state, anyway, but rather to be aggressive and murderous. Such actions that were not greatly neccesary for a Jewish state and a safe refuge for Jews from anti-semitism-which were most of them-I do not support.

rare is the person who openly admits supporting murder and ethnic cleansing. With Israel most people just look the other way as the Israeli army kills and slaughters.

Many don't. I am proud to say that I am among the latter-or maybe I'm just arrogant.

their Resistance.

I find your phrasing interesting, though.

"They haven't...

not to make a Jewish state, anyway, but rather to be aggressive and murderous"

It seems strangely phrased, kind of like doublespeaks. I don't accuse, it is just feels like on one hand you admit to the violence used yet on the other hand you negate it.

that violence and aggresion was not needed for a Jewish state. The violence and aggresion that did happen-which I admit it did-had no purpose for the Jewish state.

and what has been the consequence of these tactics?

It is not the existence of the homeland that is in question, but the tactics at play as well as the consequence of those tactics. As a political movement it seems to be more complicated than just believing in the existence of a state called Israel.

I am not at odds with the existence of a State of Israel, but their existence has had some consequences that they need to be accountable for. This is where the debate jumps off. I am not even sure being at odds with the more immoral tactics, their consequence, and the denial of these tactics as in some ways being a causal element even makes me anti-zionist.

I actually completely understand the Jewish Resistance to their own persecution and I understand the rationales behind many of the zionists actions. Even their use of what I might consider militant nationalist measures to unify all the Jewish immigrants to the extent that Yiddish was banned as a language. My problem is I can not negate the fact that the states existence came at the expense of the existence of a whole other people. A people who's resistance the Israeli military machine has failed to defeat completely. I feel the Palestinian Resistance is as worthy and has as much merit as the Jewish Resistant had in its time.

I veer from the Zionist movement for some of the reasons expressed in the writings of Rabbi Aaron Samuel Tamaret. "In Tamaret's view, if Jews were to adpot the tactics of violent stagecraft," as the Zionist Movement most readily did, "a grieviuos moral injury would be inflicted on all of humankind." Of course that is a bold statement and I am not sure how much of a premonition that was. However, Rabbi Tamaret does have some very poignant things to say about the Torah practice and Judaism and he, as some others that split from the Zionist movement (or the Balfourists as he calls them) back than, felt the Zionist movement was in moral conflict with the Torah practice.

the aspect of Zionism which I find the most problematic is that faction within the Zionist movement whose wholehearted aims were not just the creation and existence of a Jewish homeland within mandated or partitioned borders, but that aspect of Zionism that originally saught in full conscious intent to expell Arabs from as much of that land as they could (and this was during the mandate era).

That aspect of Zionism hellbent on what we have come to know as Greater Israel; that aspect of Zionism that set in place meticulous propaganda campaigns which have resulted in the Israeli doctrine and indocrinations which are now virtually transparent; that aspect of Zionism that in utter hypocrasy refused and till this day refuses to acknowledge the worthy cause of the People they are responsible for persecuting: The Palestinians whom they are responsible for having made them virtually non-existent as they expect the Palestinians to just forget their history, forget their loses; that aspect of Zionism that in full control of the history denies even the existence and the numbers of the Palestinian's dead.

I have no problem with the creation or the continued existence of the state of Israel, my problem is its complete unwillingness to admit their share of the blame and take their share of the responsibility.

but with the disporportinate balance of power fanatism speaks to fanatism... one mirrors the other.. I do not know which fanatics are the most loathesome.

I wonder about the Christian Zionists being bothersome to the Jewish Zionists for the very reason you bring up, but I believe that is relegated simply to politics (which seems to stand mostly for corruption and dirty dealing) or business... a means to an end... and morality does not really seem to enter into the equation when framed in political terms.

As for the Palestinian Nationalists, I am not sure they can be all lumped into a fanatic catagory to be dispelled so easily. I say this only because the Palestinians nationalism and their identity have been significantly damaged by Israeli military strategies as well as the Occupation. A fervent nationalism is to be expected from within a people struggling against repression and for thier self determination and a State of Palestine. It is the whole resistance terrorism quandary.

Anything he stands for is bad news as far as I am concerned. And he has no business interfering in this issue anyway.

of the Jews to Christianity (or better Jews) just before the Rapture.

Would one expect Delay to say anything different?

who is screwing over whom...?
I think that IF these xtian fundies want "the rapture" they'll
be screwing over their jewish "brothers" in the long run.

I say we nuke the site from orbit...just to make sure...

rabid xtian prophesy seems to have written it that ... however islam is bound to get into the act unless they are crush before the xtians attempt this conversion... my guess is the xtians will be crushed by the jews and then the jews and the islamists will do that final battle of armeggeddon but the truth is beyond rapture ... i really don't know what I am talking about... but I am sure someone else here has the islamist prophesy on this as well... not me though...

at one point I had a passing convertation with a very funny guy on this prophesy angle and after thinking it over for a very quick moment... he came up with a solution... he figures the holy land is just too problematic to humanity... too many people seem to want to take possession of it sooooooo.... he figured the best solution was to evacute the holy land entirely... give all the proper notice and a mile radius of distance away from the holy land...

than once all are evacutated the US just bomb it to smithereens that way no one can have it... and that will settle that arguement... we both laughed... of course he was joking... doing a routine I mean... because truly what they got going now... is not moving in a very good direction all in all... so to some extent there is really no sense to it... he resorted to non-sense altogether...

okay... now that I cracked myself up...