Posted on 01/11/2007 6:12:16 PM PST by SJackson
There is an ugly cynicism to the attack on Jimmy Carter that has been launched by Americans who well recognize that the former president's new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," says nothing that has not already been said about the Middle East conflict by Israeli politicians and commentators.
So why is Carter, a longtime friend of Israel and the Jewish people, being smeared as an anti-Semite for suggesting that the occupation by Israeli forces of Palestinian territory inspires troubling comparisons with the apartheid system that white South Africans once imposed on their country's black majority?
One of Israel's most prominent political figures suggests that it has a lot to do with the determination of Carter's critics to allow their emotions to trump the facts.
"The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what's in front of them," argues Shulamit Aloni, a veteran of Israel's war of independence who went on to serve in the Knesset and as a minister in several Israeli cabinets. "Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us."
In a defense of Carter penned for the mass-circulation Israeli newspaper Yediot Acharonot, the woman who served as former Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin's education minister wrote, "Indeed apartheid does exist here."
"The U.S. Jewish establishment's onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: Through its army, the government of Israel practices a brutal form of apartheid in the territory it occupies," explains Aloni. "Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population's movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians' land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades."
Aloni should be reminded that the battering of Carter has as frequently come from non-Jews as Jews in the U.S. But, with that clarification, her message is one that merits serious attention from Americans who are frustrated by this country's inability to engage in a serious discussion about Middle East policy.
This does not mean that everyone must agree with Aloni's every point.
A recipient of the Israel Prize, the highest honor awarded by her country's government, the internationally respected parliamentarian has long been a critic of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. Some will disregard her remarks for that reason. Others who respect Aloni's history may disagree with her current critique. But no one who has followed Israeli affairs can doubt that she speaks for a meaningful number of her countrymen and women when she defends Carter.
In fact, the Web site of the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom recently featured this call: "Please consider adding your voices to those who are grateful to Jimmy Carter for writing a brave and important book, 'Peace Not Apartheid.' While the media tries to blank him out, and some would cast aspersions at President Carter for being 'anti-Israel,' in fact the book offers much needed wisdom about how to support a just peace in Israel and Palestine."
Aloni and Gush Shalom certainly do not speak for all Israelis. But their response to Carter's book should be instructive for Americans.
It is not necessary to share all of Aloni's views to recognize that the veteran of the Hagana paramilitary organization has done a service not only to Carter but to all Americans who would like to see this country engage in an honest dialogue about Middle East affairs. While Israel enjoys a reasonably vibrant debate with regard to how the Jewish state should relate to Palestine, the United States suffers from a crude and dysfunctional discourse about the same question. The attacks on Jimmy Carter highlight just how ugly and dishonest that discourse has become. Perhaps that is why Shulamit Aloni's pointed response to those attacks is so important. It took an Israeli to remind us of how much more realistic the U.S. dialogue could - and should - be.
Carter has now crossed the last line imo.
oh please!
James Taranto Best of the Web (free online Wall Street Journal content) has a great report today on 14 more members of the Carter Center advisory group, resigning over the contents of that book which they say in part
"In the past you would inject yourself into this world to moderate between the two sides in the pursuit of peace and as a result you earned our admiration and support. Now you repeatedly make false claims. You wrote that UN Security Council Resolution 242 says that "Israel must withdraw from territories" (p. 38), but you know the word "must" in fact is not in the resolution. You said that since Mahmoud Abbas has been in office there have been no peace discussions. That is wrong. You wrote that Yassir Arafat told you in 1990 that, "The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel" (p. 62). Given that their Charter, which explicitly calls for Israel's destruction, was not revised until the late 1990s, how could you even write such a claim as if it were credible?"
let's see the MSM report THIS!
self ping. The guy is a slimer.
That's far more bigotted than anything Pat Buchanan has ever said, yet he is widely considered an anti-semite by the left.
Jimmy Crater is an anti Semite. Is that permissible to say? This idiot's plan for peace will weaken Israel enough for the Muslims (who fund the Carter presidential center) to move in for the kill. Carter either wants this or is too stupid to figure out the end game
Just look how this moron Carter forced the Shah out and gave us the Islam crazies who now rule Iran
Jeeze Louise.......pass the Pepto alert!
Maybe that's unfair to Clinton, but there's no doubt in my mind that Carter considers right wingers bigots.
Excellent, perhaps FR will ban everyone critical President Carter and President Clinton. Might change the tone of the place a bit.
Maybe. But remember he explained he wasn't attacking the "Jewish media", rather the "Christian media" which supports Israel. I think he's just never met a terrorist he doesn't like.
Ok, I wasn't quite sure how to take your comment earlier, but it seems you were "tongue in cheek" sorta replying for Clinton and Carter instead of yourself.
I was hoping that was the scenario.
I perhaps was partially to blame bringing in another subject about Carter (and Clinton) and integrating it into this subject.
Clinton and Carter have basically came out guns blazing for Christians in this thread...
Clinton, Carter to Lead Faction of Baptists Away from Biblical Truth on Life and Family
I sorta incorperated the two into one comment. You were not clear as to if you were supporting their "bigot" comment or just making a remark as if on their behalf in TIC(tongue in cheek) fashion.
Anyhoo, I think we are on the same page now.
Yes they have. And don't forget Carter's way of denying his books allusionss to a Jewish conspiracy in and control of the media and government to benefit Israel. He said he wasn't promoting that standard anti-semitic canard, rather the blame lie not with Jews, but with the Christians in the media and government who support Israel. Just what media Carter is reading, I haven't a clue.
That's funny, Jimmy and Bills Evangelical Church, where you can lust in mind and body. Unless Clinton is speaking and giving autographs, I doubt they'll get 20,000 attendees.
Maybe. But remember he explained he wasn't attacking the "Jewish media", rather the "Christian media" which supports Israel. I think he's just never met a terrorist he doesn't like.
Jimmy Carter has always been an anti Semitic rat as far as I'm concerned. At the Camp David accords he bullied Israel and pushed them a lot more than the Egyptians. The people that surround him have never been pro Israel and pro Israeli survival. Israeli survival is a non issue for Carter and his minions they like Arab Muslims, do business with Arab Muslims like Bert Lance. This and other things make him an anti Semite. Especially since he is a very public anti Israel figure. Some little who doesn't like Israel isn't necessarily an anti Semite
I would agree, but before this book he never let it all hang out. The "*uck the Jews" comment, and his "final solution" comment for Israel had he been re-elected, but these were hardly covered. It's also worth noting after getting 71% of the Jewish note in 1976, he dropped to 45% in 1980, so someone was paying attention.
Iran has been plaguing Israel for decades. And who made sure the Shah (a friend of Israel) was gotten rid of? Jimmy Carter. Of course Iran is a menace to more than Israel these days. Intentionally and by his astounding stupidity & naiveté Jimmy Carter has made life more difficult for Israel
I think you've misinterpreted SJackson. The poster wrote:
They both know right wing Christians are bigots, they consider that factual, not judgement.
This might have been clearer had the poster instead written:
They both "know" that right-wing Christians are bigots - they consider that factual, not judgement.
I think SJackson was simply (correctly) explaining Carter's and Clinton's view, not his or her own. At least that was my read.
Wow... I count one distortion or outright lie in each of the first four paragraphs so I stopped reading there. It's tripe.
jw
Thanks, I don't think it's an issue. Lot's of folks post before fully reading/comprehending a comment.
And yes, I think Carter considers right wing Christians bigots. I'd include Jew, Muslims, Wiccans, et al, but there aren't as many. Clinton, probably not, he's looking for popularity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.