Today’s NY Times: Thomas Friedman says, More important, when people say, “The most important thing America could do today to stabilize the Middle East is solve the Israel-Palestine conflict,” they are wrong. It’s second. The most important thing would be to resolve the Iran-U.S. conflict." (Friedman’s “Not-So-Strange Bedfellow” contrast our events/associations between Iran and Saudi Arabia to value diplomacy (Baker-Hamilton Iraqi Study Group has suggested) with Iran as the most important thing to Middle East problems.) This article is tagged at end of Palestine responses.
______________________________________________________________________________
The responses to “Palestine,” regarding Jimmy Carter’s book, generated more replies than usual. For the reader’s interest I have included them herewith. Responses may also be made at anytime on the blog at Critical Actions, anonymously or by name. Either way I will receive an immediate email with full script of your reply.
I appreciate all of the honest, straightforward, respectful dialog.
As noted on header Not-So-Strange Bedfellow is included below responses. It is yet another, I believe, important perspective on the Middle East journey to peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Responses:
I think Mr. Carter speaks for many of us who are frustrated by an almost blind, one-sided view of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Like you, I have the highest respect for this gentleman who has become a towering figure for good since he left the Presidency 26 years ago.One thing's for sure: Whether we're talking about Iraq or Israel, "stay the course" just ain't working in either place. WL
--------------
Cornell, You raise good questions. I tend to agree with your line of thinking. JH
-----------------
I agree that the United States should use every diplomatic means possible to broker peace in the Middle East. However, I disagree with Carter's statement: "there is little doubt that the lack of a persistent effort to resolve the Palestinian issue is a major source of anti-American sentiment and terrorist activity throughout the Middle East and Islamic world." I am apparently in the minority described by Carter as "little doubt" in that I believe it is the United States change from a predominantly isolationist country to one of interventionist (sometimes construed as imperialist) which has spawned increased anti-American sentiment and terrorism. One of the founding principles of the United States is one of religious tolerance. As a nation we must tolerate and respect the religious freedom of individuals and only intervene when absolutely necessary to prevent genocide. Personally I think that national security would have benefited if the U.S. had not gone and stirred the hornet's nest but instead sealed the walls and improved the processes by which foreign nationals are allowed into the country. It is not the U.S. duty to take sides on any issue with religious consequence but to be tolerant and accepting of both sides despite their historical transgressions. As a nation the U.S. must forgive but not forget the religiously motivated actions we have witnessed over the past decade. The only question remains, now that the U.S. has stirred a hornet's nest how does it plan to pacify it? Enforcing religious tolerance in chaos is a near impossibility and is something that can only be learned through exemplary behavior. The U.S. has not set a good example in its recent actions but instead has garnered a shoot out in the religious world. The best defense is not a good offense... a good offense is simply offensive. LC
--------------------
Dear Cornell,
Thanks for sending me your article and asking me for my thoughts.
I do have an opinion about this book and even though I haven't read it, I have been listening to reviews and excerpts about it and do have my thoughts regarding it. I'm a member of the Jerusalem Prayer Team and am very supportive of Israel's efforts to fight for the restoration of their land that that God gave them. Read Isaiah 45:17 and Is. 62:6 and 7, and especially Genesis 12:3. That last verse is why our country has to support Israel.
God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who don't. We can't compromise with Israel's enemies whoever they are. We are instructed by His Word to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, but we do know there will never be any real peace until the Prince of Peace returns.
I also read that after Jimmy Carter's book came out, that 13 members of his committee resigned because they do not support what he said and neither do I.
Thank you for inviting my thoughts and opinion.
Fondly,
SW
----------------------
Dad,Good insight. I'll respond more later. I do want you to know that I looked everywhere for this book...but it was out and on backorder in 4 bookstores. I'm glad you found it, though. I saw an interview with Jimmy Carter regarding the book...very interesting. Hope I can find time to read it sometime! Much love, JP
----------------------
I must admit I don't read all your ' blogging ' but this one I found the time. Found your insight / information very interesting . Saw Jimmy carter on nightly news the other night. He got very emotional as he recalled the camp david summit and how Sadat almost walked out. SA
---------------------
Carter has a better grasp of the situation than our politicians and most Americans. No doubt our politicians are afraid to speak out against Israel because of the big bucks they receive from the Jewish community. Palestinians on the other hand have not reciprocated positively with any peace proposals made by Israel in the past. They've responded with suicide attacks. They seem to only want to destroy Israel and have only Palestine. Only God knows the answer! BW
---------------------
Hello Cornell,
Thanks for your letter. As a fellow Georgian Carter is sometimes looked at with pride for his personal character, but several reservations on his policies while president and stands afterwards. Overall I think it is important to remember that the Israel is under constant attack and has loss of civilian life due to homicide bombers on a regular basis. Yet they have persevered with a democracy despite the issues. Yes I am sure they make many mistakes along the way but after all, survival is the basic instinct. With all there neighbors calling for their destruction continuously, I think it is wise to be a little paranoid.
As far as the US taking unfair sides, I would have to agree that we are biased towards Israel. But then again, with some many hostile neighbors in the mid-east, without the constant US support, Israel may not be able to exist. When you look on the other side and see the massive amounts of daily terrorist attacks in the territories, many of which are between rival factions in the West Bank, it makes you wonder how they could govern if Israel were to leave the entirely to their own government. Overall the West Bank and Lebanon both seem to be fractured by warring groups that, though they all hate Israel, yet they also hate one another so much they really can't govern the country anyway.
We all long for peace but the reality is that security concerns are probable out weighing the desire for peace on both sides.
Best wishes to all and keep up the good thinking,
JW
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
January 31, 2007 – New York Times
Op-Ed Columnist
Not-So-Strange Bedfellow
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Here’s a little foreign policy test. I am going to describe two countries — “Country A” and “Country B” — and you tell me which one is America’s ally and which one is not.
Let’s start: Country A actively helped the U.S. defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and replace it with a pro-U.S. elected alliance of moderate Muslims. Country A regularly holds sort-of-free elections. Country A’s women vote, hold office, are the majority of its university students and are fully integrated into the work force.
On 9/11, residents of Country A were among the very few in the Muslim world to hold spontaneous pro-U.S. demonstrations. Country A’s radical president recently held a conference about why the Holocaust never happened — to try to gain popularity. A month later, Country A held nationwide elections for local councils, and that same president saw his candidates get wiped out by voters who preferred more moderate conservatives. Country A has a strategic interest in the success of the pro-U.S., Shiite-led, elected Iraqi government. Although it’s a Muslim country right next to Iraq, Country A has never sent any suicide bombers to Iraq, and has long protected its Christians and Jews. Country A has more bloggers per capita than any country in the Muslim Middle East.
The brand of Islam practiced by Country A respects women, is open to reinterpretation in light of modernity and rejects Al Qaeda’s nihilism.
Now Country B: Country B gave us 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. Country B does not allow its women to drive, vote or run for office. It is illegal in Country B to build a church, synagogue or Hindu temple. Country B helped finance the Taliban.
Country B’s private charities help sustain Al Qaeda. Young men from Country B’s mosques have been regularly recruited to carry out suicide bombings in Iraq. Mosques and charities in Country B raise funds to support the insurgency in Iraq. Country B does not want the elected, Shiite-led government in Iraq to succeed. While Country B’s leaders are pro-U.S., polls show many of its people are hostile to America — some of them celebrated on 9/11. The brand of Islam supported by Country B and exported by it to mosques around the world is the most hostile to modernity and other faiths.
Question: Which country is America’s natural ally: A or B?
Country A is, of course. Country A is Iran. Country B is Saudi Arabia.
Don’t worry. I know that Iran has also engaged in terrorism against the U.S. and that the Saudis have supported America at key times in some areas. The point I’m trying to make, though, is that the hostility between Iran and the U.S. since the overthrow of the shah in 1979 is not organic. By dint of culture, history and geography, we actually have a lot of interests in common with Iran’s people. And I am not the only one to notice that.
Because the U.S. has destroyed Iran’s two biggest enemies — the Taliban and Saddam — “there is now a debate in Iran as to whether we should continue to act so harshly against the Americans,” Mohammad Hossein Adeli, Iran’s former ambassador to London, told me at Davos. “There is now more readiness for dialogue with the United States.”
More important, when people say, “The most important thing America could do today to stabilize the Middle East is solve the Israel-Palestine conflict,” they are wrong. It’s second. The most important thing would be to resolve the Iran-U.S. conflict.
That would change the whole Middle East and open up the way to solving the Israel-Palestine conflict, because Iran is the key backer of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Syria. Iran’s active help could also be critical for stabilizing Iraq.
This is why I oppose war with Iran. I favor negotiations. Isolating Iran like Castro’s Cuba has produced only the same result as in Cuba: strengthening Iran’s Castros. But for talks with Iran to bear fruit, we have to negotiate with Iran with leverage.
How do we get leverage? Make it clear that Iran can’t push us out of the gulf militarily; bring down the price of oil, which is key to the cockiness of Iran’s hard-line leadership; squeeze the hard-liners financially. But all this has to be accompanied with a clear declaration that the U.S. is not seeking regime change in Iran, but a change of behavior, that the U.S. wants to immediately restore its embassy in Tehran and that the first thing it will do is grant 50,000 student visas for young Iranians to study at U.S. universities.
Just do that — and then sit back and watch the most amazing debate explode inside Iran. You can bet the farm on it.
______________________________________________________________________________
The responses to “Palestine,” regarding Jimmy Carter’s book, generated more replies than usual. For the reader’s interest I have included them herewith. Responses may also be made at anytime on the blog at Critical Actions, anonymously or by name. Either way I will receive an immediate email with full script of your reply.
I appreciate all of the honest, straightforward, respectful dialog.
As noted on header Not-So-Strange Bedfellow is included below responses. It is yet another, I believe, important perspective on the Middle East journey to peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Responses:
I think Mr. Carter speaks for many of us who are frustrated by an almost blind, one-sided view of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Like you, I have the highest respect for this gentleman who has become a towering figure for good since he left the Presidency 26 years ago.One thing's for sure: Whether we're talking about Iraq or Israel, "stay the course" just ain't working in either place. WL
--------------
Cornell, You raise good questions. I tend to agree with your line of thinking. JH
-----------------
I agree that the United States should use every diplomatic means possible to broker peace in the Middle East. However, I disagree with Carter's statement: "there is little doubt that the lack of a persistent effort to resolve the Palestinian issue is a major source of anti-American sentiment and terrorist activity throughout the Middle East and Islamic world." I am apparently in the minority described by Carter as "little doubt" in that I believe it is the United States change from a predominantly isolationist country to one of interventionist (sometimes construed as imperialist) which has spawned increased anti-American sentiment and terrorism. One of the founding principles of the United States is one of religious tolerance. As a nation we must tolerate and respect the religious freedom of individuals and only intervene when absolutely necessary to prevent genocide. Personally I think that national security would have benefited if the U.S. had not gone and stirred the hornet's nest but instead sealed the walls and improved the processes by which foreign nationals are allowed into the country. It is not the U.S. duty to take sides on any issue with religious consequence but to be tolerant and accepting of both sides despite their historical transgressions. As a nation the U.S. must forgive but not forget the religiously motivated actions we have witnessed over the past decade. The only question remains, now that the U.S. has stirred a hornet's nest how does it plan to pacify it? Enforcing religious tolerance in chaos is a near impossibility and is something that can only be learned through exemplary behavior. The U.S. has not set a good example in its recent actions but instead has garnered a shoot out in the religious world. The best defense is not a good offense... a good offense is simply offensive. LC
--------------------
Dear Cornell,
Thanks for sending me your article and asking me for my thoughts.
I do have an opinion about this book and even though I haven't read it, I have been listening to reviews and excerpts about it and do have my thoughts regarding it. I'm a member of the Jerusalem Prayer Team and am very supportive of Israel's efforts to fight for the restoration of their land that that God gave them. Read Isaiah 45:17 and Is. 62:6 and 7, and especially Genesis 12:3. That last verse is why our country has to support Israel.
God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who don't. We can't compromise with Israel's enemies whoever they are. We are instructed by His Word to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, but we do know there will never be any real peace until the Prince of Peace returns.
I also read that after Jimmy Carter's book came out, that 13 members of his committee resigned because they do not support what he said and neither do I.
Thank you for inviting my thoughts and opinion.
Fondly,
SW
----------------------
Dad,Good insight. I'll respond more later. I do want you to know that I looked everywhere for this book...but it was out and on backorder in 4 bookstores. I'm glad you found it, though. I saw an interview with Jimmy Carter regarding the book...very interesting. Hope I can find time to read it sometime! Much love, JP
----------------------
I must admit I don't read all your ' blogging ' but this one I found the time. Found your insight / information very interesting . Saw Jimmy carter on nightly news the other night. He got very emotional as he recalled the camp david summit and how Sadat almost walked out. SA
---------------------
Carter has a better grasp of the situation than our politicians and most Americans. No doubt our politicians are afraid to speak out against Israel because of the big bucks they receive from the Jewish community. Palestinians on the other hand have not reciprocated positively with any peace proposals made by Israel in the past. They've responded with suicide attacks. They seem to only want to destroy Israel and have only Palestine. Only God knows the answer! BW
---------------------
Hello Cornell,
Thanks for your letter. As a fellow Georgian Carter is sometimes looked at with pride for his personal character, but several reservations on his policies while president and stands afterwards. Overall I think it is important to remember that the Israel is under constant attack and has loss of civilian life due to homicide bombers on a regular basis. Yet they have persevered with a democracy despite the issues. Yes I am sure they make many mistakes along the way but after all, survival is the basic instinct. With all there neighbors calling for their destruction continuously, I think it is wise to be a little paranoid.
As far as the US taking unfair sides, I would have to agree that we are biased towards Israel. But then again, with some many hostile neighbors in the mid-east, without the constant US support, Israel may not be able to exist. When you look on the other side and see the massive amounts of daily terrorist attacks in the territories, many of which are between rival factions in the West Bank, it makes you wonder how they could govern if Israel were to leave the entirely to their own government. Overall the West Bank and Lebanon both seem to be fractured by warring groups that, though they all hate Israel, yet they also hate one another so much they really can't govern the country anyway.
We all long for peace but the reality is that security concerns are probable out weighing the desire for peace on both sides.
Best wishes to all and keep up the good thinking,
JW
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
January 31, 2007 – New York Times
Op-Ed Columnist
Not-So-Strange Bedfellow
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Here’s a little foreign policy test. I am going to describe two countries — “Country A” and “Country B” — and you tell me which one is America’s ally and which one is not.
Let’s start: Country A actively helped the U.S. defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and replace it with a pro-U.S. elected alliance of moderate Muslims. Country A regularly holds sort-of-free elections. Country A’s women vote, hold office, are the majority of its university students and are fully integrated into the work force.
On 9/11, residents of Country A were among the very few in the Muslim world to hold spontaneous pro-U.S. demonstrations. Country A’s radical president recently held a conference about why the Holocaust never happened — to try to gain popularity. A month later, Country A held nationwide elections for local councils, and that same president saw his candidates get wiped out by voters who preferred more moderate conservatives. Country A has a strategic interest in the success of the pro-U.S., Shiite-led, elected Iraqi government. Although it’s a Muslim country right next to Iraq, Country A has never sent any suicide bombers to Iraq, and has long protected its Christians and Jews. Country A has more bloggers per capita than any country in the Muslim Middle East.
The brand of Islam practiced by Country A respects women, is open to reinterpretation in light of modernity and rejects Al Qaeda’s nihilism.
Now Country B: Country B gave us 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. Country B does not allow its women to drive, vote or run for office. It is illegal in Country B to build a church, synagogue or Hindu temple. Country B helped finance the Taliban.
Country B’s private charities help sustain Al Qaeda. Young men from Country B’s mosques have been regularly recruited to carry out suicide bombings in Iraq. Mosques and charities in Country B raise funds to support the insurgency in Iraq. Country B does not want the elected, Shiite-led government in Iraq to succeed. While Country B’s leaders are pro-U.S., polls show many of its people are hostile to America — some of them celebrated on 9/11. The brand of Islam supported by Country B and exported by it to mosques around the world is the most hostile to modernity and other faiths.
Question: Which country is America’s natural ally: A or B?
Country A is, of course. Country A is Iran. Country B is Saudi Arabia.
Don’t worry. I know that Iran has also engaged in terrorism against the U.S. and that the Saudis have supported America at key times in some areas. The point I’m trying to make, though, is that the hostility between Iran and the U.S. since the overthrow of the shah in 1979 is not organic. By dint of culture, history and geography, we actually have a lot of interests in common with Iran’s people. And I am not the only one to notice that.
Because the U.S. has destroyed Iran’s two biggest enemies — the Taliban and Saddam — “there is now a debate in Iran as to whether we should continue to act so harshly against the Americans,” Mohammad Hossein Adeli, Iran’s former ambassador to London, told me at Davos. “There is now more readiness for dialogue with the United States.”
More important, when people say, “The most important thing America could do today to stabilize the Middle East is solve the Israel-Palestine conflict,” they are wrong. It’s second. The most important thing would be to resolve the Iran-U.S. conflict.
That would change the whole Middle East and open up the way to solving the Israel-Palestine conflict, because Iran is the key backer of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Syria. Iran’s active help could also be critical for stabilizing Iraq.
This is why I oppose war with Iran. I favor negotiations. Isolating Iran like Castro’s Cuba has produced only the same result as in Cuba: strengthening Iran’s Castros. But for talks with Iran to bear fruit, we have to negotiate with Iran with leverage.
How do we get leverage? Make it clear that Iran can’t push us out of the gulf militarily; bring down the price of oil, which is key to the cockiness of Iran’s hard-line leadership; squeeze the hard-liners financially. But all this has to be accompanied with a clear declaration that the U.S. is not seeking regime change in Iran, but a change of behavior, that the U.S. wants to immediately restore its embassy in Tehran and that the first thing it will do is grant 50,000 student visas for young Iranians to study at U.S. universities.
Just do that — and then sit back and watch the most amazing debate explode inside Iran. You can bet the farm on it.
