Down, down, down he goes
I’ve not written anything on Jimmy Carter and / or Israel for a while, but the controversy surrounding this former U.S. President doesn’t seem to go away. The debate about his book is still – rightfully – going on. David posted an interesting article yesterday in which he argues that Carter seems to endorse Palestinian terrorism in at least one passage in his book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.
The passage (from the article on this at David’s blog:
“It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.” (Pg. 213)
David writes:
As Konner and Volokh both note, there doesn’t seem to be a way to read it that doesn’t have it specifically approving of “suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism” until such time as Israel “accepts” (whatever that means) international laws and the Roadmap for Peace (presumably, as interpreted by Carter and said Palestinian groups, as I’d imagine Israel would claim it does this already).
Although this passage is up for interpretation – one could also, for instance, argue that Carter did not endorse terrorism, but that he simply considers it to be realistic; namely that terrorism will not stop, although he hates it, until Israel does such and so – it seems to me that the interpretation of the three people mentioned above is correct. David argued on this point:
Now, one can believe that Israel is in grave breach of international law. One can even say that they don’t care about the peace process (though this strikes me as an empirically far less tenable position). However, my impression was that one of the horizons for respectable discourse on the Israeli/Palestinian issue was that terrorism must be rejected at all points in the process–it is not a bargaining issue, just something that has to happen. Under the most charitable reading of Carter’s work, he’s rejecting this position to instead say that Palestinian actors won’t move against terrorism their demands are met (which, of course, would lead to an indefinite stalemate). Under a less charitable reading, this is not an observation but a threat–terrorism will continue to occur, with our blessing and approval, until Israel capitulates. But since he is not just making a prediction, but specifically asking Palestinian groups to set this as their policy, it’s difficult for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Exactly my thoughts on this issue.
Now, let me interprete it in the more friendly way as described above. Again the passage:
“It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.” (Pg. 213)
There seem to be 2 possible options for Carter to write this:
1- he doesn’t know what he’s talking about
2- he has fallen for the nonsense, the lies and the victim-mentality of the Palestinian terrorist organizations like Hamas
Of course there is a third option, although the interpretation for that one isn’t as friendly as with the two options above: he is simply an anti-Semite.
Since the first option can be ruled out (he knows or at least should know what he’s talking about), we’ve got only two options left. I leave it up to you to decide which option is the most likely one.
Palestinian terrorist organizations, like Hamas, will only stop committing terrorism against the state of Israel when the state of Israel ceases to exist. It is that simple. Read Hamas’s charter for evidence for this for instance. The problem is not where Israel’s borders are, the problem is that Israel has borders.
Meanwhile, there is more news on the Carter-front: 14 Carter Center advisors resign due to Carter’s new book.
Fourteen members of a Carter Center advisory board – including a former U.S. ambassador – quit today in protest of Jimmy Carter’s latest book, which they view as being critical of Israel.
In a letter to Carter, the members of the Board of Councilors wrote that the former president had “clearly abandoned your historic role of broker, in favor of becoming an advocate for one side.”
[...]
December, former aide Kenneth Stein resigned as the Carter Center’s Middle East fellow in protest saying the book is riddled with errors and omissions.Berman, who is Jewish, said all of the members of the board agonized before resigning, but added that Carter helped them make their decision with his subsequent reactions to the book’s criticism.
“The comments you have made the past few weeks insinuating that there is a monolith of Jewish power in America are most disturbing and must be addressed by us,” the letter stated. “In our great country where freedom of expression is basic bedrock you have suddenly proclaimed that Americans cannot express their opinion on matters in the Middle East for fear of retribution from the ‘Jewish Lobby.’”
Among the ones who resigned:
1. Alan R. Abrams, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Servidyne, Inc., an Atlanta-based company serving the needs of commercial customers in the hospitality, industrial, corporate and institutional real estate markets.
2. Liane Levetan, former state senator and DeKalb CEO.
3. Cathey Steinberg, Executive Director of the Juvenile Justice Fund, former state Consumers’ Insurance Advocate and former state Senator.
4. Steve Selig, President and Chairman of the Board of Selig Enterprises. Has been in the commercial real estate field and employed with Selig Enterprises for over 35 years. He is also the Chairman of the Board of AAA Parking, a Selig subsidiary.
5. William B. Schwartz, Jr. was the U.S. Ambassador to The Bahamas from 1977-1981 during the Carter Administration.
What we can conclude, by now, is that Carter has made himself completely irrelevant for the Palestine – Israel debate.
Endorsing terrorism or at least excusing it has that effect.
Lastly, another good article on Carter(‘s new book) at JTA News written by Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi. Reversed racism, is that what lead Carter to his present views?
On New Year’s Eve, a time when many search their inner hearts, a column Carter wrote was published in the religion section of The Washington Post. It was called “Faith, Commitments and Mideast Peace.� What he wrote, perhaps inadvertently, shone a laser beam onto his own soul and may have revealed a new injustice — reverse racism — that has led him to anti-Israel sentiments. He may mistakenly believe his new mission to be a part of his personal redemption.
Carter’s New Year’s Eve piece sums up his political views through the lens of his childhood.
“Our life’s priorities are affected by our personal experiences,� he wrote. “I grew up as a farm boy in the segregated South, and all my early playmates and friends were black. Of the five adults who shaped my life, other than my parents, only two of them were white. My future political commitments were shaped by my aversion to the official discrimination that I condoned in my youth.�
To Carter, everything now may be about purging himself before his God from the racist sins of his youth. But in so doing, he may have unwittingly embraced a new racism in which he views every challenge as a struggle between dark- and light-skinned people, automatically assuming that those with darker skin are the oppressed and those with lighter skin are the oppressors.
[...]
True, many Palestinians are suffering mightily and deserve a better life. But their main oppressors are not the Israelis whom Carter classifies as white racists. Carter’s portrayal of the “Israeli oppressors� vs. “Palestinian oppressed� fails to consider the other side. Israelis also are oppressed, every day of their lives, by the threat of terrorism, by a nuclear Iran vowing to annihilate them, by the murder of innocent Israeli citizens by groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and by a historic animosity to Israel’s very existence by regional dictatorships that have the capacity to mobilize armies much larger than the entire population of Israel.The challenges faced by the typically darker-skinned Palestinians have nothing to do with race or the segregation of Carter’s Georgia childhood. They are largely due to the failures of Palestinian and other Arab leaders to accept a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians live side by side in peace. From the theft of millions of dollars of aid to the Palestinian people by Yasser Arafat, to the second intifada that has only harmed their own cause, the real oppression of the Palestinian people stems not from Israeli racism, but from a Palestinian leadership that has failed its people.
Reversed racism or not, it has to be pointed out time and time again: the Palestinians are in the mess they’re in these days, not because of Israel, but because of their own leaders. Corruption. Stupidity. Hatred. Chaos. Mismanagement.
Carter encourages the victim-mentality already adopted by so many Palestinians(‘ leaders). This attitude is a lie, of course, but an effective one.
Cross posted at Michael P.F. van der Galiën.com.
37 Responses to “Down, down, down he goes”
Such a lenghty story about old bore Jimmy Carter, Michael? Aren’t there more important topics right now? And, for the sake of gaster scrolling, could you pls use a ‘read more’ link?
“could you please use a read more link?”
No. That’s not an option with our current format at TMV.
More important topics? Perhaps. On the other hand, I felt it was worth the time to write a post to address this issue now.
“That’s not an option with our current format at TMV.”
Let’s say it as it is: WordPress can’t do that.
Gray, lol, you can also just scroll down…
I don’t know that we have the full context here, however, he says it is “imperative that they make it clear” not ‘it’s imperative they bomb Israel’s socks off until…’ It sounds like a commentary on what they are doing rather than an opinion or an endorsement to me–in that particular passage.
Gray, that seems to be an option, as I have pointed out, but David has a good point regarding such an interpretation:
Uh, no misunderestimation, pls, Michael. That comment above was from Gary…
An Israeli Defense of Jimmy Carter
having trouble with the Link, sorry it’s early where I’m at
Here’s the link to article:
An Israeli Defense of Jimmy Carter
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070108/cm_thenation/1155513
Hehe, at least i’m not the only one who’s a bit confused about WordPress this morning
The victim mentality theme is a fascinating one, certainly something that you need to explore in greater depths, Michael. Can a culture of grievance ever grow and prosper? Or is it definitionally doomed to be mired in blame and bitterness?
The advisory board members resigned mainly over Carter’s statements after the book release, not his opinions in the book itself. These members said that they were troubled by the book but it wasn’t enough to cause them to resign; but when Carter repeatedly spoke out against the “Jewish lobby” in the US, the line was crossed in their opinion.
It’s quite a shame because the Carter Center does some excellent work that is completely separate from Carter’s political views, but he does have to realize that these opinions will alienate some people, including these civic leaders who had the ability to garner public support for the Center’s work.
since he is not just making a prediction, but specifically asking Palestinian groups to set this as their policy, it’s difficult for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I think he’s suggesting an endpoint to violence already unfolding. Of course some would have you believe he is a deeply violent man, who has done much ill in this world…
But why is the Israeli lobby off limits? If CAIR had a powerful lobby in Washington that was reining in our responses in the ME, don’t you think there would be much criticism of its influence? AIPAC is the elephant in the room—they are powerful, they do influence a lot of US policy, and pointing that fact out is just facing reality. If you view our past responses to conflicts between Israel and her Arab neighbors and what transpired last summer between Israel and Lebanon, the difference is readily apparent. In the past, we took more of a neutral role, and acted to constrict Israeli aggression when it became obvious that they were overreacting. This time we sat back and enabled the destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure.
There is a definite taboo in criticizing actions of the Israeli government and their lobby in this country. Carter broke the taboo, and now is the beneficiary of outrage ensuing from that act. We ourselves have abstained from our peacemaking role since Bush took office, and Rice is just now traveling to the region to resume that role. You can’t desire peace and unconditionally back Israel.
corvus,
Your link to “An Israeli Defense of Jimmy Carter” was spot on. The absence of comment by the Carter critics here is proof of the Yahoo stories accuracy.
Kim,
I was only pointing out the reasons that the advisors gave for their resignation, not saying that I’m totally in agreement with them. I do think that Carter could have been more measured in his comments about the issue of the power of AIPAC, but I think there’s a valid point there about unconditional, emotionally based support of Israel.
CS- OK- I wasn’t clear on your take on the issue. Thanks for clearing it up. I just think we can’t afford to have any untouchable subjects if we are to have the needed honest debate about our approach to the region.
It’s just a myth that Carter was responsible for Camp David. Therre is no peace with Egypt or Jordan. Carter speaks out with less venom than Mearsheimer and Walt and is attacked as an anti-Semite – BS.
“Therre is no peace with Egypt or Jordan.”
I have to say, this is news to me, Rudi. Would you care to explain this opinion?
Gray the whole comment is a snark. Haaretz can discuss the Carter book, the US MSM won’t.
Carter has thoroughly discredited himself. He has received alot of arab money over the years, as has many former government officials. BTW we never hear of the arab lobby and its influence on American policy on the Middle East, and accusations of dual loyalty by those American citizens representing the interests of saudi arabia and other arab interests.
“Gray the whole comment is a snark.”
Oops, sry. Lost in translation.
“The comments you have made the past few weeks insinuating that there is a monolith of Jewish power in America are most disturbing and must be addressed by us,� the letter stated. “In our great country where freedom of expression is basic bedrock you have suddenly proclaimed that Americans cannot express their opinion on matters in the Middle East for fear of retribution from the ‘Jewish Lobby.’�
I am convinced that the reaction of jewish peoples to anti-semitism is a good portion of why this anti-semitism perpetuates. I must first say I beieve in the full equality of men and women of any race. But when one watches the news and hears the anti-defimation league spewing on about Mel Gibson or Jimmy Carter, they make a name for themselves as an inconfident people. A good metaphor is the guy in your office who can’t laugh at himself, so you joke about him more regularly. Largely, the formation of Isreal in it’s modern form was a reaction to anti-semitism (Nazism etc.), an understandable over-reaction. But in the process, they were responsible for the destruction of the palestinian people. They are largely responsible for their own predicament. Yes, bombing people is wrong, especially innocents. However, I know of no other major option for the palestinians. Realistically, they can inflict little or no damage on the Isreali Army. The only means they are able to envision are violent, because largely the global community dropped the ball on, and continues to drop the ball on calling out the Isreali people on their evils. Certainly, the palestinians are wrong in a lot of ways. But you must understand that they live in deep deep poverty. So gaining an inch of land here or there is not enough. Additionally, they are a ruled people. Can you imagine if Canada came into your neighborhood and destroyed it entirely with bulldozers, because somebody didn’t like Celine Dion? Well that’s a stretch. But let us not condemn Carter for his honest and realistic view. He is not advocating the palestinian position. He’s just stating that in order for peace to be achieved, even the most minor of attacks on Isreal must be stopped following agreement. He didn’t say, “In the meantime go bomb em guys. I just love you Hamas folks!” I would argue that the U.S. is very pro-Isreali. If they were so Pro-palestinian I would be upset with that too!
But, Laura, Carter isn’t standing up for the entire Arab world.He’s standing up for the Palestinians. He stands up for the homeless and dispossessed- look at his work with Habitat for Humanity. He is more about human rights than advancing Arab causes.
BTW, If you are worried about those kind of political connections, look no further than the oil men in office now. The Bush family and the Saudi royals go way back—a Saudi prince tutored W on foreign policy before he took office. Were there any repercussions for S.A. after 9/11? They have the most oppressive gov’t in the ME, and it must have grated on Osama and his friends (most of whom were Saudis)when a close royal family friend won the presidency.
Why can’t we move forward with a peace process? Because we can’t even agree that Israel and Palestine are at war.
There is a myth that Palestinians are the only ones committing acts of terrorism. This has to end, and I believe that was the goal of Jimmy Carter’s book. He wanted to open our eyes to the indisputable fact that both the Israelis and Palestinians are terrorizing each other.
If we all can at least agree on that, I think we can start to make some real progress towards peace.
The cultures are so dissimilar. Palestinians still want to get back the lands that their grandfathers grazed their sheep on- Westerners don’t think like that. Islamic law is incompatible with the Western world. We should never give up on peace, but I don’t think even Jimmy Carter could make peace in today’s world or even during Clinton’s administration.
Exactly
This is a distorted view of the situation. The reality of the situation is that the Israelis are acting in self-defense against palestinian terrorism. This kind of moral equivalency by western liberals is a large part of the problem. They fail to make distinctions between victim and aggressor.
This statement completely ignores the centuries of Jewish historical connections to the land, and the fact that there had always been a Jewish presence there. You have no clue as to what you are talking about. The Zionist movement existed long before the holocaust, and the Balfour declaration granted a Jewish homeland in Palestine, to which the British later betrayed the Jews and gave 80% of the Palestine mandate to the arabs, which became Transjordan. There was never any such people as “palestinian” arabs prior to the ’67 war. It is a completely made up nationality, as no such sovereign arab nation ever existed. The so-called “palestinians” themselves are descendents of immigrants from arab nations, who came after the Jews settled largely empty palestine in the 19th century and built up the land.
But Kim, my point is, that the arab money Carter has received may influence his distorted view of the situation in the Middle East.
And actually Carter does stand up for the entire arab world in fact. He’s heaped praise on arab dictators and has never taken the arab world to task for its lack of freedom and its oppression. In fact Carter seems to have an effinity also with left wing dictators like castro.
I think this passage the linked article in Michael’s post hits the nail right on the head:
That should have been spelled affinity.
The arabs are responsible for the destruction of the palestinian arabs. From 1947, when the arabs rejected a partition of palestine between Jews and arabs which would have created an arab palestinian state, and instead launched a war of anihilation against Israel, and ordered the arabs to flee believing they would defeat the Jews and then the arabs could return. And the arab world has been using and exploiting these people in the decades since, as pawns in their war against the existence of Israel.
And as I mentioned, there already is an arab state in Palestine, Jordan.
Laura -If you really read about Carter, you see that he is a devout Christian to his core. He’s never been about money-he’s about his pet causes. I just can’t see him selling out to any cause unless he believed it was legit.
corvus,
thanks for the link to the yahoo article. Until the original poster and laura read it and think critically about it, no rational discussion can be had.
Maybe the reason this story won’t go away is because folks like you don’t stop bringing it up. I get through weeks without thinking of Jimmy Carter. You should try it.
There is no excuse for terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. The excuse that there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian doesn’t fly. Even if it approached it there would still be the fact that attacking civilian targets in Israel will inevitably kill non-Israelis.
The Palestinians almost unanimously support those who make terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. In return the Israelis attack the terrorists, inevitably killing the civilians that the terrorists live among. The Palestinians insist that Jerusalem must be the capital of their state with some willing to settle for it being East Jerusalem and the Israelis adamantly refuse to consider it. For a Palestinian state to be viable it must have a decent sized area of contiguous land. The Israeli settlements on the West Bank and their connecting roads and infrastructure make this impossible while Israeli politics apparently make it impossible to abandon and/or dismantle enough of these settlements to make a difference. In other words, neither side is blameless. Each of them contribute to an inability to find a peaceful solution.
Read Richard Ben Cramer’s: How Israel Lost. It’s a hell of a book. Its a thoughtful book. Written about Jews and Palestians who both want peace and who both want to make deal but whose political leaders ignore those wishes and how money being made by both sides by a few major players that complicates the whole situation
Cramer a Jew, an American born reporter who lived in Israel and writes about Israel and the whole situation with love, humor and pain and sadness.
Give it a read.
The reality of the situation is that it’s far more complex than this black & white, good vs. evil dichotomy that you suggest. A large part of the problem is the moral simplification that western war-hawk/conservatives accept. They fail to see past the propaganda.