Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

And Carter still has not gotten over his extreme naivity, ignorance, or stupidity, however you wish to describe it. Such is very dangerous of course if it resides in a president. One of Reagan's strongest points was he understood the realities of the world, including human nature, including that of the leaders of other countries, and therefore did not buy into some pipe dream or false trust of the political hucksters around the world. Reagan's realism is another reason why Reagan did not believe in socialism and communism, which of course is just another form of naivity. It sounds good on paper, but doesn't work in the real world nearly as well as capitalism.

I feel sorry for Carter if he is bitter, but if he's wrong, then how do you fix it? I wish he would stay in Georgia and quit causing trouble for us while trying to vindicate himself to no avail.

BBB
Why am I not surprised that members of the "Israel can do no wrong club" come out with guns blazing against Jimmy Carter's lastest book before they've read it? If you are not a member of their club, you must be anti-semetic,

In case they are uninformed, Carter's book is not about Israel. It is about the Palestinians and the conditions in their shrinking land areas. If you don't understand the Palestinian problems, you cannot understand the Israel-Palestine conflict. They might learn some facts, but I doubt they are inclined to educate themselves. Ignorance is bliss, but deadly.

BBB

The late Shah was ran an oligarchic government in Iran, but no more so than the zealots who have replaced him. He tried hard to rrestablish some sense of the pre-Islamic Persian culture and identity in the country, and to align it with modern standards for economic development, the role of women and many other issues. Sadly the forces that overthrew him are moving in the other direction.

Bush's failures as a leader are quite evident. Mostly (in my view) they proceed from his truly remarkable inability to express an understanding of the complexity of issues and the many ironic elements that are necessarily present in any real solution to real problems. I'm nit so sure Iraq has really been "lost" in the sense that many would have us believe. Neither do I believe that the historical verdict on the age will simply be that Bush is a dunce. That, for example, was the prevailing view with respect to President Truman at the end of his presidency, but the judgement of history has been quite different. When the history of the decade is written, I believe the jealousy and venality of the major governments of continental Western Europe will get a bigger play than they do today.

No, I haven't read "Fiasco". Who is the author? (Am I revealing my indifferent lack of knowledge of contemporary wisdom?)

I have known good men who were lousy leaders, and bad ones who were pretty good in such roles. Despite his occasional mean-spirited back biting, I believe Carter is an example of the former.

For BBB - I do agree with Carter with respect to the Palestinians. I do wonder that why believing what he does, he didn't do something about it when he could. Ezer Weitsman expressed views sympathetic to this even in 1979 and was then an important figure in the Likud party. It is unfortunate that Carter did not act on this idea after the peace with Egypt when the moment was ripe.

The Ombudsman's Mailbag re Jimmy Carter's book
The Ombudsman's Mailbag
By Michael Getler - PBS
November 30, 2006
The Jimmy and Judy Show

On Tuesday evening, Nov. 28, former President Jimmy Carter was interviewed on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" by special correspondent Judy Woodruff. The subject was Carter's latest book, the 21st he has authored, titled: "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."

That's a catchy, and provocative, title and, as Woodruff said at the start of the interview, "that title has brought some sharp critiques from Americans sympathetic to Israel, and its publication comes amid both renewed tensions and some peaceful gestures between Israelis and Palestinians."

Carter, who was the Nobel Peace Laureate in 2002 and who fathered the Camp David Accords and peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1978 during his presidency, has devoted many years of his life to seeking lasting peace in the Middle East. His more contemporary views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and especially the plight of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, are more controversial among some Americans, as Woodruff pointed out, and the subject itself always draws a lot of attention to coverage by news organizations from viewers and readers.

So it was not surprising to me that this interview drew a fair amount of letters. Several of them are presented below. But what did surprise me was that so many of the letters were critical of Woodruff as the interviewer.

That was not my reaction. I thought this was both a good interview and good television. Indeed, I thought it was lively and important television, if one can say that about two talking heads; the kind of interview-driven discussion about this very important subject that one doesn't hear very often on American television, especially involving such a prominent American spokesperson as the former president.

President Carter can hold his own in any discussion of this subject, and he did. I thought what Woodruff succeeded in doing was asking good, challenging questions that elicited focused responses by Carter that went to the core of what he sees as the problem, namely failure of Israel to withdraw from occupied territories. She also, in her questions, worked in recent news developments, which is certainly fair, and some general perceptions in this country about some of the broader issues. That technique, on one hand, might be seen by some as challenging the notions Carter was driving at, or appearing uninformed that some of these perceptions may be wrong. Yet, some of those perceptions about what is happening in the conflict are widespread here and, in fact, are not often challenged in the American media, or at least analyzed with the experience and viewpoint that Carter brings to them. I thought Woodruff's questioning, whether intentionally or not, brought those points out in Carter's responses. In other words, some of the questions enabled Carter to make his points more emphatically and tellingly about what details Americans may, or may not, be informed about, and I thought that was a plus for viewers.

I didn't think Woodruff's questioning was condescending or disrespectful or partisan or any of the things that several viewers said they saw. I saw it as fair and with a degree of proper challenge that, as a viewer and a journalist, I'd vote for more of in more NewsHour interviews.

You can judge for yourself by clicking on the link in the second paragraph of this column, which will take you to a transcript of the interview. Meanwhile …

Here Are the Letters
President Jimmy Carter has been brave enough to speak out about the suffering of the Palestinian people. I felt that the interviewer 11/28/06 on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer was condescending to one of our country's most honored and honest citizens.

Betsy Gardner, So. Burlington, VT

It is regrettable that no one was present to challenge the truth of the remarks by President Carter re the Palestinian positions. I have read in more than one source that Hamas and other Palestinian spokesmen have clearly stated that they would never recognize the State of Israel and one ?'moderate', now deceased, stated loud and clear that the objective was to claim all the land between the river and the sea.

Your guest, on his book tour, didn't even mention that the barrier had been built in response to terrorist acts, that there has been a marked reduction in suicide murders since its erection. Nor did he mention that the large number of Palestinian prisoners have blood on their hands, that the Palestinians have publicly stated their intention to eliminate Israel.

Abraham Walfish, New Rochelle, NY

I listened to Pres. Jimmy Carter on the NewsHour tonight. I was in total amazement in how brave this man was to tell the story that you (and all the U.S. press) are afraid to tell. It was a pivotal moment in television. The portion of the program that was not pivotal was the ignorance shown by host Judy Woodruff to the reality of the Israel/Palestinian situation. Judy acted surprised to hear that there ARE 9,300 Palestinian prisoners (some women and children) held by Israel. She was surprised that there has been NO American initiated talks to end the civil war for 6 yrs. I was dumbfounded. But please, to Judy Woodruff's credit, she has the company of all of the American journalists when I said she was ignorant (of the issues).

George Brousard, Hayward, WI

My husband and I just finished watching the interview with Jimmy Carter on "The NewsHour." It is quite obvious that Carter chooses to ignore facts and history in order to present his case. As an example of his distortions and half-truths, he spoke about the wall at Gaza which humiliates the Palestinians but he neglected to mention the suicide attacks which prompted the building of the wall. Also, Israel was ready to implement the Oslo accords when the Palestinians started the 2nd intifada. It is very disappointing that your reporter did not have the integrity or the knowledge to put his statements in their proper context.

Flushing, NY

The woman who interviewed him introduced him as former President Jimmy Carter; then, throughout and at the end of the interview she addressed him as President Carter. This is incorrect since he is not the President. I notice this is done by news reporters when Bill Clinton is introduced or interviewed, as well. Correct and proper addressing is good journalism; it is accurate.

Judy Novotny, Roseville, MN

(Ombudsman's note: It is proper to address all former presidents as president.)

More on Judy Rather Than Jimmy

I was very distressed by the manner in which Judy Woodruff addressed her questions to former President Jimmy Carter on the NewsHour yesterday evening. Her attitude was overbearing, condescending and far too editorial in its character. By this I mean it was obvious she was opposed to what President Carter was saying about the United States and the Palestinians and made no effort to hide it. It was an unpleasant interview and a shame because what President Carter was saying was so important and so little said in the mainstream media. It was irritating to have to listen to Ms. Woodruff's aggression in the face of President Carter's calm and informed comments. A poor choice of an interviewer.

Joan Banach, New York, NY

Judy Woodruff sounds as if she is working for Fox News. She passes critical comments against the Democrats in her questions of her guests. They just slip in. I am now watching her interview President Carter and she is not respecting what is being said, but takes the other side in a very aggressive way. She is not interviewing him, but debating him on all points, and is very biased.

Houston, TX

Ms. Woodruff was disrespectful, obnoxious and arrogant and did not contribute to learning more about the issues. President Carter is a respected peacemaker worldwide. He was constantly interrupted while trying to present important but unknown facts about the crisis in the Middle East.

Gold Canyon, AR

I have been a long time viewer of the NewsHour. However, recently I've sometimes switched to Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Tonight cemented my choice. After the NewsHour's interview with Marjorie Miller of the Los Angeles Times and then the later interview of President Carter I felt insulted by the apparent disrespect shown for their opinions. This is NOT the balanced news I expect from Public Broadcasting. You've lost me as a viewer.

Darlyne Burns, Haiku, HI

Judy Woodruff really disappointed us tonite! In her interview with Jimmy Carter, she effectively set herself apart from the NewsHour's regulars and from the program's high standards of objectivity. How sad!

Judy finished her interview with Carter with a flourish by stating that Carter's views were "very passionate." The irony is that from the get-go, Judy was tingling with emotion and vehemently partisan in her questioning. Carter, on the other hand, was straightforward, deliberate, and thorough in his answers. He didn't get excited and bounce forward or tap his pencil hard in the way that Judy did. Certainly, he was committed to his topic and strongly behind the facts that he presented ?- but the word "passionate" better describes Judy's demeanor than Carter's!

If the NewsHour has a problem with Carter's "facts," then how about an interchange between him and some other reputed expert, with an IMPARTIAL NewsHour moderator! Then we could hear both sides of what could be a very important controversy ?- in a dispassionate way.

Nancy & Ed Weiss, Batavia, IL

Re Judy Woodruff's interview with Pres. Carter: I was astounded by the obvious bias of Ms. Woodruff in this interview. I could understand if it were Fox ?- but PBS?? Evidently PBS is now an outlet for AIPAC-fair and balanced? Well my only vote is to not renew my PBS membership. Adios.

Denis Langhans, Olympia, WA

A Changed View of Carter

I was appalled by today's interview with ex-President J. Carter concerning his most recent book on Israel and the Palestinians. I used to think he was an honest and impartial person, but I think so no longer. He is (hopefully) not an imbecile, but if so how can he argue (and forcefully) about the imbalance between "one abducted Israeli soldier versus the thousands of Palestinian prisoners?" The clear implication is that Israel holds Palestinian prisoners for no reason except meanness, not because these prisoners have committed transgressions of the law (terrorist or other). Moreover, Israel is so evil it holds (doubtless totally pure, innocent) Palestinian children as prisoners, just out of "evilness." (Ombudsman's note: There is no expression of evil or "evilness" in Carter's comments.) There were other such "inaccuracies" and if need be we can obtain the transcript and rebut them. Surely one thing one cannot accuse Israel of is stupidity, and what motivation can there be for one holding imprisoned innocent people?

One other argument which Mr. J.C. made was that firing rockets or suicide bombers was the only defense the Palestinians had. This argument is immoral in addition to being dishonest: the intent of these acts is not to protest but to kill innocent people. By no means is that equal to Palestinians losing their lives because of unintentional mistakes.

Sir, I ask that you have a balanced presentation in the near future on this very subject (Mr. J.C.'s book) to undo the harm you have done to the truth.

As the Mr. J.C.'s explanations that by using the term apartheid in the title he did not mean to compare Israel to South Africa, since apartheid means other things than apartheid as we all know it (I forget the etymology and Mr. J.C.'s sophisticated interpretations) all I can say is: if we had a Polygraph on line at the time, it would have probably have exploded (or died of laughter). Mr. J.C. has an axe to grind ?- and he does so in a biased and dishonest way. Is he at the pay of the Arabs (if not personally then via his Library or his "good works")? I have no such knowledge, but then again how would I? I ask again that you have a rebuttal session ?- it is unprofessional to bring on one person which proceeds to butcher a cause with no opportunity to answer that person's lies (direct or by implication).

P.S. I've been watching PBS since I was a graduate student in Boston almost half a century ago. This is the first letter I have ever addressed you … too bad it is a letter of anger, sorrow and (to some extent) disgust.

Raymond Naar, Delmar, NY

I heard President Jimmy Carter last night and nearly jumped for joy. Finally someone is having the "guts" to speak the truth. At first I was angry with Judy Woodruff's reaction of almost distain and not seeming to believe what he was saying. Then I realized that she is no different than most people who only hear what we are told by the "powers that be" about this situation. When you see pictures of the "wealth" of Tel Aviv, and the conditions that the Palestinians are living under, you have to ask, what did Israel do to help build the economy and well being of the people they "occupied" for years? How about some "sympathy" for all involved. And Judy, please, inform yourself more about the world of "reality."

S. Nelson, G., WI

I am writing to complain about the Judy Woodruff interview with President Jimmy Carter. I find Woodruff strident and biased always, but she hit her stride tonight. She was disrespectful and rude and tried her best to diminish President Carter's balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In summing up his comments she tried to make it seem as if he was a dithering old man with passionate feelings. My household agrees with President Carter and we have great respect for his humanity. I have none for Judy Woodruff and I wish fervently that you would leave her to Fox News, where she belongs.

Judy North, San Geronimo, CA

A Revealing Exchange

I'm grateful for the Internet service that provides text from your television interviews. Last night I watched Judy Woodruff interview Jimmy Carter about his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." The most alarming piece of the exchange was Woodruff's response to Carter's statements on Hamas:

JIMMY CARTER: And as a matter of fact, Hamas, whom everyone criticizes ?- the fact is that Hamas, since August of 2004, has not committed a single act of terrorism that cost an Israeli life, not a single one.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I think many Americans would be surprised to hear that.

Why would Americans be surprised to hear what Carter has to say about Hamas? Don't Americans watch the news? Who brings us the news? YOU DO.

If Carter makes such a crisp statement only to be questioned by a journalist, it makes me wonder just how much I can trust the news that comes through PBS. Did Woodruff believe Carter was lying? Or did she know only the party line, that Hamas is evil? Is Public Broadcasting losing its way because of money? The ADM ads are enough to turn my stomach. But ads allow PBS to continue, so we ignore the p.r. spin as best we can. But we cannot ignore sloppy news reporting. The Lehrer Report must work hard to bring us the news that is not part of the official White House view, it must question the common view, and if it doesn't believe a former president because he espouses views from a different angle, we are in big trouble.

Sharon E. Streeter, Portland, OR

Judy Woodruff's Israeli bias, whether real or not, was palpable last night when she interviewed President Carter. What's going on? I know her better than that! Is the East Coast Israeli donor establishment that powerful that PBS cannot be balanced in its news reporting? She asked the same question three times to the point that I shouted back at the TV set: "He has already answered the question." I don't normally do that and maybe never to the NewsHour staff.

Kenneth Jones, Eugene, OR

Was anyone embarrassed by Judy Woodruff's lack of preparation for her interview with former president Carter? Ms. Woodruff asked about the day's news story of an Israeli offer of talks. Mr. Carter had to remind her that The NY Times had dismissed the gesture as non-substantive. Ms. Woodruff ploughed on, asking two more questions about the Israeli offer. Think about it: the former president's book is about six years of American neglect of the Palestinian situation, and Ms. Woodruff stayed stuck on the morning's headlines. Well, not quite; but it got worse. When Ms. Woodruff listed Palestinian abuses, including the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, the former president responded that some of 9,200 Palestinians, almost three hundred of who are children, currently languish in Israeli jails without charges, and that Hamas offered to swap prisoners immediately after the abduction. Ms. Woodruff looked confused. Why? Did she read the book? Did she do her homework?

(Ombudsman's note: She did read the book and prepared for the interview over two weeks, according to the producers.)

Finally, after the former president recounted the rejection by Israel and the US of the democratically elected Hamas government, Ms. Woodruff offered, "Many Americans would be surprised" (at these facts). I thought it was Ms. Woodruff's job (and indeed The NewsHour's task) to inform Americans of such facts. The reporter's job is to enlighten, not be uninformed.

Ms. Woodruff is no neophyte, and I thought hers was a poor performance by a seasoned reporter. It was as though she did the interview "cold," unaware of the contents of the former president's book, and that he apparently has decided to become a lightning rod for this critical Israeli/Palestinian issue. Poor preparation by a reporter ill serves your viewers.

Bill Duncan, Woodburne, NY

After hearing Jimmy Carter's review of his book, we felt it was decidedly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli and was hardly an unbiased point of view. As PBS usually does, it offers varying points of view on an issue. We therefore would expect someone such as (Alan) Dershowitz or of his ilk to present the Israeli point of view. P.S. We are regular viewers of this program which we feel offers us the best news available on TV.

Woodbridge, CT

It was really shocking that on yesterday's Lehrer news show that Judy Woodruff was so hostile and patronizing toward President Carter. It is not her role to channel the Israeli Government. And if she is so ignorant of the Palestine/Israeli conflict as she appeared to be, she should not have been assigned that interview. President Carter was gracious but the interview was an embarrassment.

Larry W. Bowman, Storrs, CT

Pres. Jimmy Carter says that apartheid is not apartheid as every one acknowledges it is … he is a sly old fox and will do anything to sell his book. Why won't he discuss the US occcupation of half of Okinawa 60 years after the war?

Edde Neidich, Rancho Cucamonga, CA

The coup against Mossadeq's government was a joint Anglo-American conspiracy. The Brit's motivation was oil, and control over the means of production thereof in which British companies had invested. It wasn't necessarily the case that the Iranian government didn't offer to compensate for the fair market price, but rather, one in which the Iranian offer of compensation--which included some kind of royalty deal--didn't suit the British petroleum companies.

The American motivation was of course paranoia about communism, and the fear that Iran would turn to the USSR for tutelage and support. The fact of the matter was that Mossadeq's government wasn't really interested in such an alliance. But like the myopic militarist right wing has done in Iraq, it's better to allay the slightest of doubts and the most psychotic paranoia and replace an entire government just to be on the safe side, prudent projections be damned.

I've got his latest book on audio. I'm not very far into it, but he has already expressed regret of just that. Also, there were other factors of course that he had no control over. It's a good book so far.

Carter has more pull than people may give him credit for. When a former president of the United States and a Nobel Prize Winner claims that Israel is the defined problem, it can't help but to be extremely encouraging to the big anti-Israel contingent in this country and throughout the world.

Carter has no doubt struck a chord with this country's anti-Israel citizens and leaders. He represents the antithesis of the attitude of unconditional friendship with Israel and no doubt comes down on them a lot harder than the Palestinian/Arab side.

I won't pretend to be acquainted with the complexities of Middle Eastern history and Arab/Israeli relations but it's safe to say that the title of his new book invokes controversy before getting to page one. Tim Russert made that observation yesterday on MTP.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know something smells in Denmark when we hear Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declare that Israel should be wiped off the map, and we see Iran violating numerous U.N. resolutions while they feverishly pursue their nuclear weaponry ambitions. It seems disingenous, if not far worse, to see all of the blame and finger pointing in Israel's direction. Emboldening terrorist nations by legitimizing anti-Semitism is not good peace policy, by any stretch.

I'll shut up further with any criticism of his book until I've at least learned enough about the content of Carter's book to write something halfway intelligent about it. I know that Alan Dershowitz is critical of Carter's book, as well several other notables that I can't recall.

Here's a passage from the book:

Let me ask you something: Does that seem to be the case? What I see is the opposite trend. The media, save for conservative papers, pretty much seem to side with the Arabs, the Palestinians, and by contrast, show a stark disfavorable bias toward Israel.

Mossadeq was extremely well educated, had good negotiating skills, was contagiously charasmatic, and was ruthless and murderous, every prerequisite for a good middle eastern leader. He recognized and expanded upon the government's displeasure at seeing the British Crown making more off the oil reserves than Iran was making in royalties. The Majlis in Iran was happy to attain a 50-50 split with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company but Mossadeq wanted more. When the prime minister objected to nationalizing the oil industry, he was promptly assassinated. Mossadeq soon became prime minister after public demonstrations and he insisted on chairing the war department. After Mossadeq replaced all the top army officers with his own people, the displaced were helpful to the British in engineering the coup d'etat that deposed Mossadeq and installed the Shah.


As WWII was ending, Mossadeq was elected to the Majlis and he led the opposition to give the USSR any concessions on oil exploration and development.

I have not seen any content that directly supports the notion that U.S. fear of communism was the basis for engineering the coup d'etat, but instead, reclamation of England's ability to explore and develop their oil. Mossadeq had already demonstrated his opposition to any entry of Soviet interests.

I agree with the passage. In general, when we hear about Palestinians in this country it is only in the context of terrorism and terrorists. We don't hear about how they lose their land to settlements, don't have water rights, have their homes bulldozed, cannot move freely, have their farmland divided by "the wall" or by roads to settlements deep into their territory such that they can't get to whole sections of their land to tend them.

We've been hearing about terrorism since the beginning, everyone accepts that it is to be condemned, but nobody here wants to talk about the root causes of the problem. People here have no concept of what life is like for the Palestinians. People here believe that the word "palestinian" actually means "terrorist", that's how much our media has colored out perception of the situation.

I would just like to challenge Monte Cargo in proving that US Media has favored Palestinians over Israel save conservative papers and radio. He/She can't do it.

BBB

I saw the Woodruff interview with Carter. She did precisely what we ought to consider as her proper journalist function...she listened and advanced relevant challenges. It was a typical Newshour interview, that is, as good as it gets for a ten or fifteen minute segment.

The thrust towards the nationalization of Iran's oil industry was popularly driven, and based on the reactionary dissent that was fomented by Britain's imperialism and the unfair position that the Anglo-Persian Oil Company--which in 1936 would become the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company after the country changed its name from Persia to Iran--held in regard to the country's oil industry. One grievance of note was the APOC's outright refusal to submit to an audit of the royalties yielded to the country. After the pro-west PM Ali Razmara refused to nationalize the country's oil industry against overwhelming popular demand he was assassinated by the militant fundamentalist organization Fadayan-e Islam, and his backer, the Shah, was forced to leave the country. The Majlis selected Mossadegh as the new prime minister, and shortly thereafter he ratified the Oil Nationalization Act in the spring of 1951, seizing the AIOC's assets in Iran.

The AIOC took their grievances against Iran to the International Court of Justice, but lost their case.

Britain had solicited the assistance of the Truman administration in their plan to topple the Iranian government, but Truman flatly refused. Communist paranoia had been escalating in the US, and the Eisenhower administration committed to the plot on anti-communist grounds: fear of the socialist /communist implications of Iran's Oil Nationalization Act, Iran's common border with the USSR, and the strengthening of Iran's communist party after the assassination of Razmara, and the splintering of the party coalition that brought Mossadegh to power.

In his attempt to convince the Shah to participate in the coup, Kermit Roosevelt, the director of the operation, told him, that "failure to act could lead only to a Communist Iran or to a second Korea."

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

C-SPAN caller bashes former President Carter as 'racist, bigot, anti-Semite'

When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When both the facts and the law are against you, call the other person names!

george wrote:

Refreshing to see you argue the advantages of the secular.

Of course, putting the Shah in a positive light by comparing his regime to what followed is not entirely without merit, but one could do the same with Czarist Russia, the French aristocratic regime, apartheid and Sadaam. And it avoids overt acknowledgement of how repressive, cruel and injust regimes often lead to understandable revolutions (even if what follows can be in some ways worse for some period of time).

Re Bush...to argue that the problem is merely an inability to self-express seems as unrealistic and saintly of you as your complaints re Carter. The fellow doesn't have to be "stupid" to be profoundly unfit for that post.

"Fiasco" was written by Thomas Ricks who has covered the Pentagon for several years with the Washington Post and had the same beat for the previous 17 years while working at the Wall Street Journal. It's a very good book, george. I'd mail you my copy but I already gave it to Thomas.

YouTube - President Carter talks about AIPAC and Israel on C-SPAN

YouTube - President Carter, Mearsheimer and WaIt and The Israel Lobby

I do think the Shah offered better prospects for beneficial evolutuionary development in Iran than what they have now. To my knowledge his regeime neither repressed nor advanced religion. OK by me. I wouldn't call that an argument for the secular.

Bush may well prove to have been "unfit" as you say. A bit early now to say. There does seem to be a bit of piling on going on at the moment. A good friend (a retired former CENTCOM - not Zinni) has been bitterly critical (in private) about both Bush and Rumsfield for the past several years. We have discussed/argued the issues several times, and I was not convinced by his arguments. I sometimes get the impression from him of a four star general whose personal sense of infallability has been offended by a secretary who challenged his ideas and recommendations. (There is a club of these guys and its members tend to look out for themselves. I was never persuaded, but do look forward to the next chance to discuss the subject with him.

I do believe Bush's policies were too simplistyic, reducing what I see as a major historical challenge from Islam to the relatively trivial notion of a "War on Terror" (as though one could wage a war against a technique). Leaving Israel out of the field of discussion was also (in my view) an error. (Although the early Bush advocacy of a two state solution did give me some hope.) However this one carries enormous domestic political implications, and there is no reason at all to believe the Democrats will do any better. In a broader sense I believe the political alternatives to Bush are mere critics, without anything interesting to affirm or offer. - In that respect a dangerous situation.

There's nothing here which doesn't pretty much match my own perception of things, george, other than the last sentence.

Particularly, I'm concerned that the dems too will find themselves again being manipulated by those domestic forces into self-destructive support for what I consider to be extremist policies in Israel. This worry constitutes a serious negative possibility re a Hillary WH. I'm not sure that worry is justified, but I know it might be. Here is where I think Carter has it exactly right and where I consider his direct address to the matter to be absolutely necessary (and personally brave).

Sorry, forgot this bit.

It will be interesting to hear, when you talk to the fellow again, whether the reported relief amongst many in the military at Gates coming in will be voiced by your friend. Sounds like it will be.

There is a piling on. But I see it as being so tardy in arriving that I find far less negative in the 'eat the weak thing while it's down on the ground' dynamic than I do the rigid protocols which allowed this bloody mess to begin and progress in the manner it has.

Jimmy Carter said he wrote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to stimulate a debate in the US. Debate is putting it too mildly. He is taking a battering in the blogosphere.

It is no surprise that Israel's supporters have jumped all over Mr Carter as he is highly critical of Israel.

The so-called road map for peace has failed, he writes, because "Israel has been able to use it as a delaying tactic with an endless series of preconditions that can never be met ... and the US has been able to give the impression of positive engagement in a 'peace process' which President Bush has announced will not be fulfilled during his time in office."

Some critics are more measured than others, challenging Mr Carter on points of facts rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Alan Dershowitz, the high-profile Harvard law school professor and staunch defender of Israel, is troubled "that this decent man has written such an indecent book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".

In a piece for the Huffington Post that has been picked up by many bloggers, Mr Dershowitz challenges in detail Mr Carter on several points. Here is a flavour of Mr Dershowitz's piece.

"Carter blames Israel, and exonerates Arafat, for the Palestinian refusal to accept statehood on 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza pursuant to the Clinton-Barak offers of Camp David and Taba in 2000-2001. He accepts the Palestinian revisionist history, rejects the eyewitness accounts of President Clinton and Dennis Ross and ignores Saudi Prince Bandar's accusation that Arafat's rejection of the proposal was "a crime" and that Arafat's account "was not truthful" - except, apparently, to Carter. The fact that Carter chooses to believe Yasser Arafat over Bill Clinton speaks volumes."


Other critics have been less temperate as Mr Dershowitz. Michelle Malkin at Hot Air, along with others, are gleefully circulating a clip from C-Span in which a viewer accused the former president of being "a bigot and a racist and an anti-semite," as well as "cozying up with every dictator, thug, Islamic terrorist there is".

Mr Carter is not without his defenders though. Brian LeCompte at Flashpoint asks this question:

"Why do so many conservatives loathe Jimmy Carter. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with him on a lot of topics, but the man is a very devout Christian, fiscally responsible, and smart. He exudes real faith - much more so than our current president who merely talks about it a great deal."


http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/12/05/bloggers_come_out_to_get_carter.html#more


God bless Carter!
Long live Free speech!

Ah, it seems the United States has become a de facto colony of Israel. Criticism of the "mother" country is verboten. It has been made into a golem to fight Israel's enemies. But there is one thing wrong - it is fraticide. It is a crime to kill your brother. The Arab and the Jew are brothers both issues of Abraham.