Jimmy Carter & Israel
Tweet
Unlike conservatives, I’m not very good at faking outrage something I don’t have any outrage about. I tend to just not blog about them for lack of a deep and abiding passion for the issue. I write about stuff I really really care about.
That said, just kind of watching this whole ongoing controversy about Jimmy Carter’s new book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” is pretty interesting. The main problem I can see is that Carter has allowed his passion to overwhelm the factual information of what happened and who offered what piece of useless land to who and when for what reason. I see too many of my fellow liberals do this, allowing their sympathy to the Palestinian people to take over everything else.
The problem is, the people on the side of Israel do not make the issue any easier by being insane.
I watched this weekend a Q & A session with Alan Dershowitz at Brandeis University on the Carter book and he just comes across like a little warmonger who sees the spectre of Adolph Hitler behind everything. He reminded me of this profile of ADL’s Abraham Foxman in the NY Times, where his rhetoric of an impending holocaust makes him just look like the boy who cried wolf one time too many. I certainly don’t like the sway that pro-Israel folks have over American politicians, where only those on the fringe dare even mildly question Israel’s actions and everyone else just lines up to kiss ass.
Before 9/11 I wrote a blog post about how I thought the peace process was just a mess and it would be best if we just disengaged. Then 9/11 happened and I figured we needed to be involved. But now I don’t know though I’m erring on the side of just ditching the crazies. Religious extremists are the worst kind of extremists and that’s the two sides to the Israel/Palestine issue. Nobody’s really going to ever move from their base position because to do so would be to allegedly deny their religion. I may live by my own personal Jesus, but he doesn’t really condone blowing up people or launching rockets into neighborhoods over a piece of sorry ass land in the desert.
53 Responses to “Jimmy Carter & Israel”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
First of all, I am pro-Israel. I think they are one of the best, if not the best country in the Middle East when it comes to a lot of issues. So my opinion might not be unbiased here.
However…
I think most liberals support the Palestinians because they see them as the oppressed minoirity. Israel is rich and strong while Palestine is poor and weak. But this is not Israel vs. Palestine. It’s Israel vs. the Arab world. Egypt, Saudia Ariabia, Syria, etc. combined have a lot more money and military power in the region. But instead of using the money to help the Palestinians out, they use this money to keep the war going for political reasons.
That is not to say Israel is without fault, but there’s is nothing Israel has done that the Arabs haven’t done, either to Israel, or to other Arabs.
There is a profound flaw in the thinking that it is Israel vs the Arab world. Just two words sums it up nicely, United States. No Arab state will make a move on Israel knowing that the Israelis have the U.S. military waiting in the wings. That’s why Iran will never directly attack (unless we attack Iran, which would take the gloves effectively off). Consider as well that Israel is a nuclear power now, and not in some nebulous future like Iran. Though Hezbollah and Hamas are undoubtedly supported by outside sources like Iran and Syria, that does not mean that every instance of conflict between Israel and it’s neighbors is evidence of a larger conflict. The latest flare up between Israel and Lebanon was initially attributed to Iran and Syria by many on the right looking for yet another excuse to open up another front in the Middle East, but even now there is little evidence that Iran participated at all (much as the IED story in Iraq proved false).
As for Carter’s book, I suspect that much of the criticism is politically motivated as any open discussion on Israel’s role in the Middle East except as perpetual victim is verboten. While there is plenty of blame to go around in the Israel/Palestine conflict, I think Israel holds the key to shifting the ongoing conflict from violence toward peace by withdrawing to its own internationally recognized borders (including areas like Sheba farms in Lebanon). So long as the U.S. stands behind it, Israel simply holds the ultimate trump card against its neighbors (though not so much now that we have so utterly destabilized the region).
In certain respects, I see this in the same way I see the debate over withdrawl from Iraq. So long as Israel occupies any territory other than it’s own borders, it is acting as an occupying force and engendering the same animosity that the U.S. is fostering in Iraq. The abject living conditions evident in both cases for the majority of the population only creates an even more incendiary atmosphere for violence. Pulling back (or out, as with Iraq), creates an opportunity to simplify the situation and strips opponents (Iran, Syria, etc.) of a potent propaganda tool. There is no reason Israel or U.S. forces couldn’t return if the situation called for it (unless we get bogged down with Iran, naturally).
As for Carter’s book, I suspect that much of the criticism is politically motivated as any open discussion on Israel’s role in the Middle East except as perpetual victim is verboten.
How is it politically motivated? The harshest criticism is coming from former aides, and members of the Carter Center, 14 of which resigned because of the book.
though not so much now that we have so utterly destabilized the region
More nonsense.
Strowbridge,
if you are saying opponents see Israel as rich. Agree. If you are saying Israel is rich, disagree. Otherwise nice analysis.
Bill, Israel holds thekey? really. Stupid Israelis. Sitting there holding that key to peace and not usinfg it. Now, I would have thought that the fact that hosts of Middle Eastern countries and movements have attacked Israel over the decades and tried to exterminate them and would still like to exterminate them today, and are trying to do so, and that Israel’s very existence as a nation and the lives of its citizens is dependent upon a strong military and a pro-active defense – all would be more impoprtant. See there were times when Isralis weren’t in those lands. What happened? Jimmy Carter’s people used those lands as a convenient jumping -off point for terrorist attacks.
Carter has turned into a senile anti-semite. He has already had to abjectly apologize for sections in that book – which he has promised to change. Wouldn’t have happened if people hadn’t called him on it.
I’m against israel because I’m against the whole idea of a theocracy, whether it’s jewish, christian, or islamic. It’s racist and wrong for them to treat certain people as second class citizens because of their religion or national origin (even jews from certain countries are treated similarly). I also feel that the US should stay out of the middle east completely. Neither side is blameless and we shouldn’t make things worse by favoring one side.
20% of Israel is non-Jewish. The only legal distinction I’m aware of is that Arabs are not required to serve in the military.
What legal rights are non-Jewish people in Israel denied?
Israel has no state religion and is governed by a democratically elected parliament which allows all Israeli Arabs to vote and serve.
Maybe you have a non-standard definition of “theocracy”?
JWG
Arab citizens of Israel are not granted the full civil rights guaranteed them by the Israeli constitution and enjoyed by their Jewish neighbors:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/29/israeli_arabs/index1.html
Although technically not a theocracy, in practice Israel grants boons and privileges to its religous citizens that are denied to its secular and Arab citizens.
The title of Carter’s book referred to not Israel the nation, but to the conditons in the occupied territory. Certainly Israel does not practice Apartheid on its own Arab citizens. Conditions more closely resemble the Jim Crow era here in the US during the 100+ years following the civil war.
However, I would like to challenge any conservative on this blog to explain exactly how what is going on in the occupied territories is *not* a form of Apartheid.
A report on Palestinian life under occupation, by a Jewish-American educator:
http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0106/010611.htm
It’s been said that understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth. Here in the US we are exposed overwhelmingly to one side of this conflict, and we like it that way. Keeps things simple and black and white. It’s much easier to call Jimmy Carter an anti-semite that it is to confront our own assumptions, prejudices, and collusion in this whole mess.
From your citation:
So while racism exists just like everywhere else, it is not part of the legal structure of Israel.
Are you claiming that there are citizens within a nation that believe their civil rights are being violated? I’m shocked.
There are problems of discrimination. However, all citizens of Israel have identical legal equality except for the military requirement.
Nooooo…Jim Crow laws were legal restrictions. No such legal restrictions exist in Israel. Discrimination by individuals exists, just like everywhere else in the world.
The problem as I see it is that liberals criticize Israel without taking into account the dynamics of Israel’s day-to-day existence and the threats it faces. That is why Carter’s book is so egregious as he basically justifies Palestinian terrorism. (I know he apologized but the book has been out for how long and he is only apologizing now?).
Israel has been under attack since the beginning of its existence as a sovereign state. To not see the problem on a larger Jew vs. Arab scale is naive. The Palestinains are in the position they are in now because of the poor choices made on their behalf by their Arab brethren (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc.) for whom the Palestinians have been nothing but pawns in the Arab world’s struggle to destroy Israel. That is not to say that Israel has been witout fault, but every opportunity for peace over the last 60+ years has been rejected by the Palestinians/Arabs, in favor of violence.
The Arabs attacked and Israel won and again and again. In doing so, Israel captured the land (which was originally to be part of Israel) necessary for its security. Every time Israel tries to pull out, the rocket attacks and homicide bombers increase. but that is Israel’s fault. And now, the Palestinains are in the midst of their own little civil war between Hamas and Fatah, all thanks to Arafat and his criminal rule. Even President Clinton said that Arafat screwed him.
The Palestinians are pawns and as unfortunate as that is, it is not Israel’s fault. Hamas can come to the table any time they want. They choose not to. Maybe the Carter Center should focus on disarming the Palestiain terrorists instead of inflaming antisemitism.
I meant to say:
” Every time Israel tries to pull out, the rocket attacks and homicide bombers increase. but that is Israel’s fault?”
It is Israeli *law* that denies its Arab citizens the right to live in some neighborhoods. It is Israeli *law* that denies its Arab citizens the right to emigrate their families (including spouses and children) into Israel. It is the Israeli government (through its court system and administrative offices) that denies its Arab citizens the right to build on their own property. All acts of gross discrimination against Arab citizens practiced by a government that purports to represent them.
How many Arab states allow Jews to be members of the government?
It is not anti-semitic to criticize the Israeli government for its actions in the occupied territories. Nor does it ignore or negate criticism of Palestinian excesses to do so.
It is anti-semitic when Israeli actions are criticized in the absence of any analysis of Palestinian actions.
How are you using the word “apartheid”?
Carter himself declares that what is happening in the occupied territory is not similar to South Africa’s past.
Please explain how you are choosing to use the word first.
It is anti-semitic when Israeli actions are criticized in the absence of any analysis of Palestinian actions.
No it isn’t. It’s criticism.
When Carter all but justifies Palestinian terrorism in his criticism of Israel, that is anti-semitism.
Israel is a terrorist state founded by terrorists. Try Googling “Irgun”, “Stern Gang”, and “King David Hotel” if you don’t believe me.
Which law?
It is Israeli law (just like every other nation) that denies citizens from current enemy territories citizenship within its borders. The law is applied equally to all Israeli citizens.
How dare you refer to the UN as “terrorists”!
Hedley, I respectfully disagree. It is possible to criticise someone or a group without harboring deep-seated resentment/hatred/what-have-you.
If it is possible to justify the terror tactics taken by the likes of Moshe Dyan and menachim Begin without displaying anti-semitism (and I mean this in terms of semitism refering to arabs as well as jews)in the early days of Israel’s existence, surely it works both ways.
It is the context in which the criticism occurs that exposes the “deep-seated resentment/hatred/what-have-you.”
And the “terror” attacks of Moshe Dyan, et al, do not compare to Palestinians blowing themselves up in crowded restaurants, etc. When do the Palestinians give warnings?
Oh and by the way, the Irgun’s atacks, such as the King David Hotel (where the British and French were given advance notice which went ignored), were largely condemned by the Hebrew press. When have the Palestinians condemned one of their many terrorist attacks?
And the “terror” attacks of Moshe Dyan, et
Oh, I agree with you on that. There is no excuse or justification for that. Ever.
I just think it is possible to be critical of some of Israel’s policies and actions without being labeld an anti-semite.
It is the context in which the criticism occurs that exposes the “deep-seated resentment/hatred/what-have-you.
I understand Mel Gibson’s context (he’s a drunken ass), Jimmy Carter’s, not so much.
Israel runs the West Bank and Gaza as giant internment camps, but the Palestinians are just supposed to sit back and thank their masters for their kind treatment, right?
I am not saying that Israel’s policies and actions cannot be criticized. What I am saying is that when the criticism is worded so as to, as an example, at the same time seemingly justify Palsetinian terrorism, that goes beyond mere criticism and rises to anti-semitism.
Okay, can you give me an example of justification of Palestinian terrorsim?
From Bill’s link:
Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not the same thing. In any case, the Palestinians are also a Semitic people.
Israel runs Gaza?
The Palestinians should be saying to Egypt and Jordan, “how come you never gave us independence when you controlled the West Bank and Gaza”? “How come you never gave us our own state”?
The Palestinians should not sit back, but rather, denounce terrorism and tell Hamas to negotiate.
“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.”
Sure, he apologized for it. Months after the fact.
Want more?
Carter 1 year ago:
Riiiight. Good call.
At their roots, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are both the same thing – anti-Jew.
The Palestinians should be saying to Egypt and Jordan,
To what end?
The Palestinians should not sit back,
Agreed. Every sane person on earth needs to denounce terrorism in all its form and wherever it may be.
Well, no, I don’t think Hamas is gonna be the Rotary club of the middle east any time soon, but still, if they could do the social and charitable stuff without the blowing up markets stuff, it would be a good start.
Yeah, that pesky “We must destroy Israel” charter keeps getting in the way.
It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the
I think it is a stretch to call that anti-semitism.
The “We must destroy Israel”, yeah, that’s more clear cut.
Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism are 2 completely different things, but Israel apologists love to conflate them.
“No Arab state will make a move on Israel ”
Are you kidding me? Who do you think fund terrorist attacks agains Israel?
“if you are saying opponents see Israel as rich. Agree. ”
This one is correct.
“I’m against israel because I’m against the whole idea of a theocracy”
Israel is not a theocracy. Muslims, Christians, and even Atheists have the same rights as religious Jews. (Remember, a quarter of self-proclaimed Jews are atheists.)
“King David Hotel”
King David Hotel was being used as the British military HQ at the time. If that doesn’t make it a valid military target, then nothing is.
“No it isn’t. It’s criticism.”
If group A does something and group B does the same thing and people only attack group A it is safe to assume they are attacking the people and not their actions.
“Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism are 2 completely different things, but Israel apologists love to conflate them.”
That’s because so many Anti-Zionists are Anti-Semitic.
I can see that they may be 2 different things, but I’ll bet you can’t be one without being the other.
I.e., bet there aren’t alot of interracial marriages among Klan members.
When I was young and nieve I saw the movie, “Exodus” and felt such pity for the new Israel. Now as I approach the age of medicare, and after years of following the news and all the failed peace processes, I see Israel as just as evil as Palestine. They are opposite sides of the same coin. I would challenge anyone to point to a specific incident where they have stood to help us,their great ally. Our relationship with Israel is strictly one sided(we help them.)I admire Jimmy Carter and hope he never apologizes to those who villify him. It is true that he has committed the great sin of speaking the truth about Israel and Palestine. Any one who does so is immediately labeled “anti-semitic”. I do believe that many are finally waking up to the truth. The recent battle with Lebannon lifted the curtain on their true nature. I believe that is why the Israeli army withdrew.
Then you don’t know much.
Israel provides intelligence, joint weapons research, and advanced military equipment to the US.
Additionally, Israel is involved globally in military affairs (both exports and advice).
“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.”
Carter apologized for this sentence, saying it was “stupidly worded”. If he were less of a gentleman he would have told the truth: it was worded in a way that failed to render it immune from distortion by the right-wing smear machine. It’s the Kerry joke all over again.
Carter has apologized, and explained what he really meant, but that’s not enough for the haters.
Carter is thoughtful, conscientious, compassionate, and is capable of admitting error. No wonder people like Dugger and Hedley hate him so much.
I also think it’s rich to be lectured on anti-semitism by the same sort of people belonged to segregated clubs and fraternities in previous decades (and many still do).
It’s rich to be lectured on anti-semitism by pseudo-Christians whose rabid support of Israel is based on the belief that a reconstituted Israel will hasten the second coming (and the destruction or conversion of all the Jews).
This thread pretty much illustrates the point I was making above.
“Are you kidding me? Who do you think fund terrorist attacks against Israel? ”
If you go back and re-read what I wrote, you’ll see I mention the use of proxies by Syria and Iran. That is not the same as a direct attack by either state, which would trigger a massive response from both Israel and the U.S. Face it, Israel is armed to the teeth both conventionally and with nuclear weapons. Add the U.S. to that mix and you’d be crazy to attack directly. It has now been something like 34 years since any major player has tried to launch a significant offensive. Israel, on the other hand, has invaded Lebanon twice with the aid of U.S. military hardware.
“Israel is not a theocracy.”
Agreed, though I believe there may be evidence that Israeli Palestinians are not afforded equal treatment (though there are Arabs from other regions, the majority identify themselves as Palestinian). I need to research this more
“If group A does something and group B does the same thing and people only attack group A it is safe to assume they are attacking the people and not their actions.”
To what are you referring, all the acts of terrorism perpetrated against Israel, or the oppressive acts by Israel against the Palestinians? For decades Israel has been given a blank check to do as it pleased where its own security was concerned. now, however, it seems that hard line elements in the government have often gone too far, particularly in regards to the West Bank and Gaza. Some people, myself included, think that is unacceptable. That doesn’t mean I believe that Hamas, or Hezbollah, or anyone else who attempts to undermine the region should be allowed to act with impunity. It is all too easy in circumstances like this to have both sides take the wrong position. I also believe that much of the criticism of Israel comes from a frustration that they are themselves working against their own best interests.
For those who think that Hamas would never recognize Israel, Khaled Suleiman, a senior Hamas member, actually has actually come out and said that the Hamas movement is ready to recognize agreements signed with Israel, and in fact recognize Israel itself, but only within the ’67 borders. It is well known that there are several factions within Hamas moving in different directions. The hardliners are well known for their refusal to recognize Israel, but the more moderate members, particularly those who pushed for Hamas to become a political organization, as opposed to a more underground insurgency, were pushing for a more conciliatory approach. These moderate factions are routinely undermined by Israel’s often disproportionate responses to militant provocation. This is what I mean when I say Israel holds the key to moving peace forward. They need to work toward undermining public support for groups like Hezbollah and militant Hamas. Complete withdrawal from the occupied territories would strip radicals of a major pr tool and it’s not like Israel couldn’t march right back in if things went horribly wrong. Israel needs to take some hits to establish itself as a fair and impartial player in this game in the hope of securing broader trust among neighboring Arab communities. Call it “draining the swamp” if you will. That’s a tall order but it’s not like hammering the impoverished populations of the West Bank or Lebanon (or economically isolating Gaza) is working.
Of course, GW is lending a helping hand (I gotta throw something in to rile the wingers).
Just kidding.
I don’t care who started it, if I gotta stop this car, you’re both in big trouble!
LOL JIMMY CARTER WORST PRESIDENT EVAR BECAUSE HE WAS KIND OF DUMB AND INEFFECTUAL AND ALSO NOT A REPUBLICAN
Don’t hate Jimmy at all. I believe he has gone senile and is dominated by an Israeli-hating clique (mostly in Atlanta – around Decatur and Emory – lots of anti-semitism in the area – McKinney etc). And he was, quantifiably in some respects, the worst president in US history. Has an incumbent ever, ever lost by a greater margin? Has inflation, unemployment ever been higher?
Here ya go.
As oppsed to this.
Oh, and BTW, Hoover was a Republican.
duros
Sorry to be so late. I was only asking (semi snarkily, true) but: Good point re Hoover/Carter And I do think most observers would actually rate Hoover as the worst. I should have argued ‘worst modern pres’ (IMO).