Jimmy Carter's offensive against U.S. Jewry

[bemildred]

Hang in there, don't go off half cocked. Read the whole thing first.

I post this because it seems OBVIOUS to me that Jimmy must have expected the reaction that he has gotten. Remember who he is. He cannot have any illusions. And his book more or less SAYS that people that do what he did will be attacked in the way he has been attacked. The use of the term "apartheid" is intentionally provocative, for example. You can't convince me that was done without full understanding and intention.

Shortly after Jimmy Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" began appearing in bookstores, the former president stated that one ultimate goal of the book was "to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors."

One might assume, then, that Mr. Carter might be troubled by the signal lack of interest and comment the book has stirred in Israel.

Unless Carter's beef was not really with Israel. Unless, that is, Carter's true intended target was the organized American Jewish community.

If Carter's intent had been to foster a revival of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, then - as scathing critics Alan Dershowitz and Abraham Foxman have both explicitly remarked - the book can indeed be judged by its cover, and written off as a failure.

Haaretz

[heldmyw]

1. Kinda like Jimmah.

[Hardrada]

2. Thanks for reminding me. I haven't gotten a copy yet but I will.

I think it would be worth reading and not a book to dismiss so casually. People on both sides of this issue should at least read it in interests of fairness.

[tsuki]

5. It is worth the read. I could not put it down. I finished it, and put

it away for a month to reread. It has much information.

[stranger]

11. I am also going to buy a copy of his book

I would like to see what all the commotion is about-i am
betting it's much ado about nothing.

[pocoloco]

3. alan "it's ok to torture" dersohowoss?

[bemildred]

4. Dershowitz is a great moral leader, don't you know?

:rofl::rofl:

[calzone]

6. All American Jewry?

That is an arrogant, offensive, bushwacking statement.
I would remind Burston to bask in the sun everyday, since he obviously can't regulate his body temperature.

"Small wonder, then, that on Thursday, when the Reform movement's Central Conference of American Rabbis, the rabbinic body of the largest demonination of religiously affiliated American Jews, announced the cancellation of a scheduled visit to the Carter Center in Atlanta, and that it would "firmly disassociate ourselves from Mr. Carter and the Carter Center," the rabbis' dominant tone was one of having been betrayed by a once-cherished ally."

Yeah, that betrayed feeling. The U.S. is familiar with it. Golda Meir and the airplane, the USS Liberty, Pollard, the dancing Mossad 9/11 watchers, the list is very long indeed....but this author is saying Carter, by telling the truth,is betraying Israel and by association, all Jews, which is interesting in that the Jews are not a race or a nation or a distinct tribe,in fact the only thing that Jews have in common with each other is Judaism, a religion. A religion whose tenets condemn the majority of actions taken by the State of Israel since 1948. And further, the author's amazing premise is that Carter's motive is...no not anti-semitism, he couldn't make that pig fly, but rather...GREED. Carter is greedy says the author, and he's selling out Israel to make a buck on his book.
Holy.......freakin........shit. :-)
That's a new low.

[bemildred]

7. It was not my impression that Burston was saying that it was about

money, or about selling books.

Consider this sentence:

"The glaring error in Carter's book," wrote UCLA Prof. Saree Makdisi in the San Francisco Chronicle "is his insistence that the term 'apartheid' does not apply to Israel itself, where, he says, Jewish and non-Jewish citizen are given the same treatment under the law. That is simply not true."

Why would Burston put that in there if he was just out to trash Jimmy?

Edit: admitted, the last sentence is a bit snarky.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. huh?

"All American Jewry? That is an arrogant, offensive, bushwacking statement." It would have possibly been "an arrogant, offensive, bushwacking statement" had it been uttered by the author, yet it was not. As for the rest of your "analysis," it is nothing but a platoon of strawmen.

[calzone]

18. Ummm...Aegis

Try reading the ummm...HEADLINE before you make a fool of yourself.

As for the strawman charge...bluster and toss empty denials. Do you really think you're fooling anyone? Refute my facts.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. Um..Calzone...I did read the headline. Did you read the article?

Because if you read the article, then you clearly shouldn't have asked about "all." The author made it very clear which part of US Jewry he was referencing. As for your "facts," there aren't really any to refute.

"...the dancing Mossad 9/11 watchers..." :rofl:

"in fact the only thing that Jews have in common with each other is Judaism, a religion." Not a fact. There are groups of Jews that have much more in common with one another than just religion. The fact that you do not know this says much.

"A religion whose tenets condemn the majority of actions taken by the State of Israel since 1948." Really? The "majority" of Israeli actions? Hardly.

"And further, the author's amazing premise is that Carter's motive is...no not anti-semitism, he couldn't make that pig fly,..." This isn't even a fact; nor is it true.

"...but rather...GREED. Carter is greedy says the author, and he's selling out Israel to make a buck on his book." Bemildred shot that "fact" down.

[newyorican]

20. Quite a mountain..

...out of a mole-hill.

*All* of this over the word, "all"?

The headline does use "US Jewry" in the general sense. The lack of qualifier makes the accepted understanding to mean all.

/English 101 lesson

The back door out of this dust-up is BTA specifying the words of the author. Authors don't always contribute the headline, but they do more often than one might think.

Score is 0-0, but calzone has the ball deep in btas territory.

:popcorn:

[Behind the Aegis]

21. And yet...

...it goes from the "general" headline, to the "specific." Therefore, the entire post was much ado about nothing. It was nothing more than a cadre of strawmen based on a false, self-created "outrage" over something that wasn't there.

"The lack of qualifier makes the accepted understanding to mean all."

Very good! Then, once one reads PAST the headline, it is VERY easily understood that the author was NOT referring to ALL of US Jewry. English 101...read past the headline, as it will generally answer any questions!

[newyorican]

24. English 101...

does not instruct anyone to read beyond the headline. That would be Journalism 101.

[oberliner]

16. self-delete nt

[jaysunb]

8. I see you didn't waste any time getting back

to it...huh ? :rofl:

[bemildred]

12. Keep hope alive.

:beer:

[peacetalksforall]

9. I'm getting really tired of people who can't tell the differences

between loving your fellow man, but not going along with their leaders.

I'm sick and tired of tit for tat.
I resent the denial of simple living basics for Palestinians.
I resent decades of warring.
I resent the lack of impartiality in American policies.
I resent our government being driven by an Israeli agenda.
I want the Israeli agenda extricated from inside of the inside of the American agenda if the results are constant war, the sublimation of Palestinians, and a totally screwed up nuclear game that only a few play and and the rest of the people suffer from. Especially our kids and thousands of Iraqis (presently).

Want to test this -
analyze what you fear about Iran and try to take Israel out of the equation - then
analyze what you fear about Israel and try to take Iran out of their (Israel's) equation.

[Hardrada]

14. If we changed our campaign financing and got AIPAC

and its ilk out of US politics, we will have gone a very long way to casting off this millstone.

[stranger]

10. Carter told the truth-that's enough

Criticisng Israel is taboo in america.
But, Like the little boy in the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes"
Carter has breached liberal PC etiquette, and commented on the
unmentionable: Israel's intransigent and bellecose foreign policy.

Concervatives Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran were both written off by Israel
apologist william f buckley, who called them both "anti semitic" and
caused both of them to be removed as contributors
(blacklisted) by National Review.

But, they were right and the pusillanimous Mr Buckley, who was
intimidated by Mr. Podhoretz, was dead wrong.

And more importantly, Buchanan and Sobran,
both harsh critics of The Iraq war,
are now more widely read ta ever-and ironically more far influential
than the stuffy, and now irrelevant, octagenarian wind bag.

There was a time in the not too distant past when anyone who
criticised certain self dsitrcutive aspects of african american culture
were labeled as racist; so people
held their tongues, and refused to say many things that everybody already knew.

Thanks to people Bill Cosby and Juan Williams, that "you just hate me"
tactic no longer works.

I hope the day will now come when fear of the charge "anti semitism"
also no longer intimidates much needed, would be critics of Israeli foreign policy.

If Carter's courageous truth telling hastens that day-the book is a singular
success-Israeli intransigence and hostility to peace nothwithstanding.

Dershowitz is a neurotic idiot. Foxman is beyond neurosis.
I am glad they are both upset-they wouldnt know what to do with themselves
if their were no "anti semitic" windmills to tilt.

[Hardrada]

13. Amen to all that!

[Englander]

17. Ali Abunimah on Carter;

Hard limits and long-observed taboos
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 12 January 2007

With his book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid reaching the top of the bestseller lists, former President Jimmy Carter appears to have made a breakthrough in the ossified debate on Israel-Palestine in the United States.

In dozens of packed appearances and in the media, Carter has shattered long-observed taboos by talking about "the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank." It is still difficult to imagine any other senior US politician doing that.

>snip

Contrasted with the official discourse is an insurgent one that remains marginalized in the academy, among activists and in the alternative media. But it is gaining strength. Like the vast majority of Palestinians, it continues to view the Palestine situation as one of anti-colonial struggle, comparable to the long fight against South African apartheid. Yet Carter's intervention offers the potential to connect these views; if it becomes legitimate to describe Israel's tyranny over the occupied Palestinians as "apartheid", it may not be long before Israel's own internal colonialism against more than one million Palestinians faces similar examination. When Israel is no longer viewed as a "wonderful democracy", as US politicians without exception continue to label it, then the possibility for genuine peace based on the principle that Palestine-Israel belongs to all who live in it without discrimination based on religion, ethnic or national origin may open up. This is the danger that pro-Israel groups clearly perceive and are working night and day to stop.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6378.shtml

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Of course Carter expected the reaction he got...

I'm sure the deluge of attacks aren't bothering him one iota either. Considering those in the US are the folk who tend to claim anything but glowing praise of Israel and condemnation of the Palestinians is provocative, I reckon pointing out that there is apartheid in the Occupied Territories is guaranteed to up sales and interest. The problem in the US is that only one 'side' of the conflict is really portrayed in the mainstream world, and when an attempt comes along, by all things a US President, to show there is two sides, this sort of hysteria ensues, all which is great for sales and a high profile...

[bemildred]

23. I think you can say it's noticable, at this point, that he has failed to respond

to these "attacks". Which is, of course, the only correct response. I remember Mr Carter's Presidential term, in which the media treatment was very reminiscent of that of Clinton during his term, and this is really feeble stuff compared to some of that. They latched onto Carter's brother Billy and trashed them all as goober's, somewhat like the low and scurrilious attacks on Chelsea Clinton as a way to get at Bill Clinton. That was when I first realized that the reactionaries (for that is what they are) have no shame at all, no principles other than to attack what they fear or disagree with.

The contrast with the lickspittle sucking up of the press to a non-entity like Bush, a man clearly in way over his head and under the control of his palace eunuchs, is most dispiriting in a so called democratic nation. The thing that most distinguished Carter and Clinton, in my mind, is that they are the two most intelligent Presidents we have had in my lifetime, three if you include Kennedy. all Democrats too, you will notice.

In any case, I doubt any of this is going to affect Carter, and his "attackers" would probably serve their cause better if they omitted the knee-jerk attacks on his character. Carter's reputation is such that these attacks are more likely to reflect on the attackers than on him, as we can see.

I was rather appalled with the way they trotted out Jerry Ford's sour grapes comment to trash Carter again, now that he is back in the "news". Carter was five times the President, and ten times the ex-President, that Ford was or could have been, and think Jerry was a nice enough man, on the whole.

[number6]

25. Jimmy ROCKS !!

:thumbsup: :kick:

I'm buying ten of his books