Carter to Al-Jazeera: Palestinian missile attacks on Israelis not terrorism

[furman]

Carter to Al-Jazeera: Palestinian missile attacks on Israelis not terrorism
By israelinsider staff January 17, 2007

Former President Jimmy Carter told the Arab news network Al- Jazeera that he does not consider Palestinian missile attacks on Israeli civilians -- a war crime and breach of human rights, according to the UN -- to be acts of terror.

In an interview to defend his book, Carter, apparently in an effort to not offend pro-Palestinian Muslim viewers of the program, stated that "I don't consider... I wasn't equating the Palestinian missiles with terrorism."

more at http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/10381.htm


see also:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3353481,00.html
Carter: Palestinian rockets not terrorism
Jimmy Carter: Most criticisms of my book came from Jewish-American organizations'
Yaakov Lappin
Published: 01.17.07, 14:47

Former US President Jimmy Carter told al-Jazeera television he "was not equating Palestinian missiles with terrorism," during an appearance on the Arab satellite station on Sunday.

The broadcast has been translated and made available by MEMRI , the Middle East translation service.

"I don't consider... I wasn't equating the Palestinian missiles with terrorism," said Carter, adding: "But when the Palestinians commit terrorist acts, and I mean when a person blows himself up within a bus full of civilians, or when the target of the operation is women and children – such acts create a rejection of the Palestinians among those who care about them."

...

[Kagemusha]

1. Well there's a lot of war crimes that aren't acts of terror "per se".

Common war crimes are a dime a dozen though so it sounds less bad than terrorism.

[PCIntern]

2. Gee, he's just an awful lot of fun to listen to...

Where is everybody?

[hughee99]

4. Crickets chirping... n/t

[denverbill]

7. It certainly is odd that they never quote the question he was responding to.

Because depending on the question, I might agree with Carter.

If the question was about the missile attacks launched from Lebanon in response to Israel's invasion of Lebanon, then no, I wouldn't consider those terrorism.

If the question was about the occasional rocket fired form Gaza or the West Bank, yes, those I'd consider terrorism.

[Igel]

9. As far as I know, the missiles launched from Lebanon

in the latest round of conflict weren't particularly "Palestinian", nor were they launched by Palestinians.

I seem to remember reports last summer that the Palestinians were keeping a low profile, even if (IIRC) one of their camps was hit by Israeli fire.

This seems to rule out a priori one of your options.

[denverbill]

12. Well, considering even the 'transcript' omits most of the conversation,

and most notably, whatever the question was which prompted the reply, I have to conclude that the question is omitted deliberately to give a misleading impression about what he was saying.

Here is the 'transcript' they posted:

Jimmy Carter: Most of the condemnations of my book came from Jewish American organizations, which think that I believe there is racial segregation inside Israel. I don’t base it on that. My whole book is written about Palestine and its lands, and about what is going on against the Palestinian people, which is, in my view, very similar, and in some cases even worse, than what happened to the blacks in South Africa.

<...>

I don’t consider... I wasn’t equating the Palestinian missiles with terrorism. But when the Palestinians commit terrorist acts, and I mean when a person blows himself up within a bus full of civilians, or when the target of the operation is women and children – such acts create a rejection of the Palestinians among those who care about them. It turns the world away from sympathy and support for the Palestinian people. That’s why I said that acts of terrorism like I just described are suicidal for the popularity and support for the Palestinian cause. In my book, I talk about violence from both sides, and I describe very carefully and accurately the number of casualties among Palestinians and Israelis, including children. The number of Palestinian children who died because of the violence is five times greater than the number of Israeli children, and I condemn this kind of violence on both sides.

<...>

Last January, after the elections were over and Hamas won, I went to London to meet the International Quartet. I urged them not to impose any kind of economic sanctions against the Palestinian people, but they decided to do so. When alternatives were proposed by the Arab countries and by the United Nations, the U.S. rejected the alternatives, and to transfer money to the Palestinians.

Interviewer: Why, in your opinion?

Jimmy Carter: I think the reason is that the U.S. wants to topple Hamas and that if it punishes the Palestinian people severely, the Palestinians will have to change their minds. I don’t know how true this is, but it’s not legal, proper, or morally right to deprive an entire people of the basic necessities of life, because they participated in a democratic process and voted freely.

---------------------------

Now, don't you think it's more than a little odd that they wouldn't post the question or discuss how Carter arrived at the point of saying 'he wasn't equating Palestinian missiles with terrorism', but later in the article, they feel it important to include the interviewers 'Why, in your opinion?' question, when including that question added nothing to the understanding of what Carter said?

Anytime I read a transcript like that which is so heavily ellipsed and edited I know someone is trying to pull something off.

[theoldman]

3. Just where do we draw the line on what constitutes an act of

terrorism? During a war every one is a terrorist. The only difference is the way we kill the other person. If you die from a suicide bomb or a missile the result is the same. If you survive with the loss of arms and legs the result is the same. Too bad we don't have the balls to tell it like it is.

[Shaktimaan]

13. I disagree bigtime with this interpretation of terrorism.

Yes, everyone involved in waging war has a hand in dealing death, and whether you're killed by a gentleman soldier or by chlorine gas you are just as dead at the end of the day. That said, we still draw ethical distinctions between the different methods of waging war that are available. Some weapons, like chlorine gas, are deemed to be so unnessecarily gruesome that we deem using them to be criminal, even by the much laxer standards of battlefield law. Likewise we put terrorism in a seperate category because its goal is not merely to defeat the enemy or even just kill him. Rather, it entails erasing any division between civilain and soldier, so the corporeal's six year old daughter becomes just as legitimate a target as the corporeal himself.

So there is a difference. Sure, to the soldier who lost his legs it probably doesn't matter much how it happened. But I don't personally believe that one can commit terrorism against a soldier. I always assumed that for something to qualify as "terrorism" and not just a military action it has to purposely target civilians. One of the goals (if not THE goal) has to be formenting terror.

I agree that there is something perverse in expecting anyone involved in a real war to restrict their options in any way. Obviously once a real war gets its momentum up all rules go right out the window. But when that happens it is still probably best if there weren't canisters of mustard gas at the ready due to years of stockpiling.

[PATRICK]

5. Unreliable rockets

not well aimed at military targets by a recognized state military force are pretty close to any narrow definition of terrorism. Regular armies in war used rockets specifically for their terror effects rather than their poor accuracy and killing effect. By their noise and wild reach they are more terror than death dealing unless really sophisticated in targeting and focused on destroying an objective.

I wouldn't make too big a deal about Carter caught badly finessing a point. I would if he were the actual president. Spreading the concept of terror is an extreme danger in accomplishing the very gaol of the activity and using it politically for the supposed righteous state's own terror ends and labeling dissenters for its own advantage. The debate has so degraded that ground rules must be firmly established each time and then get to the roots of the problem not the methods and propaganda used by states or groups or even individuals to effect those roots to their own advantage or way of thinking. In the larger definition we are all terrorists- and eventually get treated as such by our own noble government until terror itself is absolutely triumphant in effect, a common means to an end by all sides for whom the vast human majority is mere fodder. The current debased political judgment by institutional "guardians" makes terror and even the terrorists completely victorious and self-affirmed.

The narrow view of the real problem is that an occupied or oppressed people with not even the means to make full war responds with the means available to them to the degree of their just cause and desperation. And the equivalence against their enemies in deaths and loss of liberty is pretty close in their experience. MOST people in the area, even those emotionally supporting the relatively few acts, like decent people everywhere neither choose to do terrorism nor expect it to work even if appears to by the wrong response of the attacked states who themselves are "in the terror game"- and by the experience of the oppressed peoples are the only ones who mainly profit from the horrors.

[BayCityProgressive]

6. WOW.

:yoiks: :popcorn:

[Zero Division]

8. I suspect another out-of-context smear against Carter

...like the Rwanda comment. I am dismayed, although not surprised, that so many are trying to paint Jimmy Carter as some sort of stereotypical, radical anti-Israel polemicist.

[PATRICK]

10. Unarguably a smear but

it seems impossible not to walk into this kind of trap where the smearer sets the game and standards and the objective is to destroy the whole point, the entire issue along with the "offender".

In other words, if he didn't say something they could use against them they would invent it whole cloth if necessary. The character of Carter's statement may be a mistake pushed by deference to his audience. The character of the attacks is pure, adulterated slander for which any truth is irrelevant.

A better question is how Carter is getting at the role of Israel in fomating the Iran strike in steady progress by removing some of the veils protecting its policy. Is he just kept in the anti-semitic meme? Is anyone really looking at Israel's full intentions in the region which, to my mind, are tragically misguided and suicidal on its best face? Is anyone going to rush in with a substitute solution to protect all involved nations in that no actor or actor can do anything without world wide support and effort? Because there is a Bush created vacuum in the latter, Israel's government is in a trap in which one cannot logically expect any other reaction.

[endarkenment]

11. Until the entire context is printed, including the question

that Carter was responding to, this just looks like more of the ongoing coordinated smear campaign against Carter for daring to criticize Israeli policies.

Carter clearly says that deliberately targeting civilians is in fact terrorism.

[idontwantaname]

14. video link

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24024_Jimmy_Carter_on_Al_Jazeera-_Palestinian_Missiles_Are_Not_Terrorism&only

i dont know if anyones seen this video bit but i think the quote of "I don't consider... I wasn't equating the Palestinian missiles with terrorism," has been blown way out of proportion. im not sure where they were the seconds before he said that but if the edit job is very suspect.

following the quote he mentions suicide bombers and targeting women and kids ect as terrorism.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. I'd like to know what the question was that Carter was answering...

I just looked at the MEMRI transcript and it's the first transcript I've seen in a long time that omits the question being asked. Considering the blatantly obvious and rather clumsy smear campaign that'shappening since Carter's book, I think it's not unreasonable to want to read the entire transcript in it's entirety so that I can see the question that was being asked. Is there a transcript available that includes the question?

[wellst0nev0ter]

16. Maybe If The Palestinians Were Firing Stinger Missiles

Instead of homemade rockets, then it wouldn't be considered terrorism :sarcasm: