Jimmy Carter's 'Peace' Mission To Brandeis

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Former president Jimmy Carter flew north to Brandeis University to speak on Tuesday of his hurt at the personal attacks by some American Jews that followed publication of his latest book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid," which urges Israel to turn away from a policy of creating "Bantustans" on the West Bank.

"This is the first time that I've ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist." Carter paused and squinted at the audience. "This has hurt me."

At the same time, he acknowledged, with a flash of his trademark smile, that he did not simply stumble into the title of his new book. "I can see it would precipitate some harsh feelings. I chose that title knowing that it would be provocative."

Provocative mission accomplished."

<snip>

"Carter did not step back from the word Tuesday. He noted that he and his successors, notably Bill Clinton, have tried and failed to nudge the Palestinians and Israelis toward a lasting peace. The last six years, he said, have been marked by failure on all sides. The administration of George W. Bush all but abandoned such efforts, putting the onus on the Palestinians to turn their back on PLO leaders and now the fundamentalist Islamic Hamas leadership. And the Israelis, too, have all but abandoned negotiation, he said, turning instead to the building of walls.

Carter spoke of Israeli's decision to build barriers and set aside certain highways for Israelis only as creating a "spider web" that constricts and divides historic Arab lands. The West Bank, he said, has become a place of "Bantustans, isolated cantons," referring to the territories created for black South Africans under apartheid. He noted that many liberal Israelis, from newspaper journalists to professors to peace activists, also refer to Israeli policy on the West Bank as apartheid, albeit a policy grounded not in racism but in a religion-based desire to control land.

Israelis "have all used and explained the word 'apartheid' in much harsher words than mine," Carter said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301668.html

[oberliner]

1. Interesting exchange from the same article

In particular, some students challenged Carter on a sentence that has brought him much grief. On Page 213 of his book, Carter wrote: "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."

This sentence, the students noted, suggests that suicide bombings are a tactic of war, to be suspended only when peace is achieved. Carter agreed -- and apologized -- and said this sentence was a great mistake on his part.

"The sentence was worded in an absolutely improper and stupid way," Carter said. "I apologize to you and to everyone here . . . it was a mistake on my part."

He added that Palestinians who embrace terrorism draw no support from him. Calls for the destruction of Israel, he said, "are completely obnoxious to me. I would have no brief for them and no sympathy for them."

[Violet_Crumble]

2. What I'd be interested in knowing...

..is why would people take that sentence to mean he supports terrorism? Surely Jimmy Carter's addressed things like attacks on Israeli civilians before and made it clear he doesn't support those attacks?

[oberliner]

4. The sentence does seem to suggest...

that Palestinians would not have to end their suicide bombings and acts of terrorism until Israel withdraws from the territories.

President Carter seems to acknowledge that the sentence could give that impression.

In the NY Times article, Carter is quoted as saying:

“I have written my publisher to change that sentence immediately. I apologize to you personally, to everyone here.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/us/24carter.html

[Violet_Crumble]

6. No, that's not what I was asking...

I'm asking if Carter has said stuff in the past that shows a support of terrorism or opposition to it. I'm sure there must be a history, given his very high profile, and if there is stuff where he's said that he's opposed to terrorism, it'd seem to me that this thing was cherry-picked while deliberately ignoring anything else he's said....

I agree with you that he seems to be acknowledging that the sentence could give that impression, though I'm sure some of the folk who are busy smearing him will misinterpret that acknowledgement as him admitting he supports terrorism. Poor bugger. He can't win whatever he says...

[oberliner]

12. My thoughts on your question

It is my understanding that President Carter has, of course, made statements in the past condemning acts of terrorism.

The fact, then, that he would include a statement in his book that seemed to suggest an acceptance of suicide bombings as legitimate was shocking and upsetting to many people. Especially since he did not condemn such actions elsewhere in the book.

I don't think the sentence was cherry-picked in order to smear President Carter, I think it was a sentence that conveyed a geniunely distressing sentiment for many people. Hopefully those critics will respond positively to Carter's admission that the sentence as worded gave an impression that he did not intend.

I think that his admittedly provocative choice of title coupled with this one unfortunate sentence has triggered some of the negative reaction, moreso than the actual proposals presented in the book.

As you may have noted from the various articles about Carter's recent appearance at Brandeis, even his number one critic Alan Dershowitz said that he essentially agreed with everything that Carter said about the conflict in that appearance.

I think that if the book had a different title and that one sentence was omitted (as Carter himself wishes to do in future editions) then the reaction would not have been what it was.

[TomClash]

8. It's a political tactic

designed to force Carter - and evryone else - to accept the position that the suicide bombing must stop before Israel considers any concrete proposals.

By the way, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers, and just about every other military expert, considers it a military tactic.

[marshall]

30. Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy...

Never let 'em see you sweat!

[piesRsquare]

3. Take it like a man, Carter

You fucking asked for it.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[question everything]

11. Some of us do not believe in turning the other cheek (nt)

[Violet_Crumble]

7. What a ridiculous thing to say...

So you think anyone who dares to utter any criticism of Israels policies and actions towards the Palestinians is asking to be called an antisemite and all sorts of nasty things? Lovely...

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. I think you mean 'peddle, not 'pander'...

And seeing as how I neither peddle nor pander any, yr 'question' now rates as the most ridiculous thing posted in this thread....

[Robson]

13. More empathy & less judging

If we could all improve our ability to empathize more and judge less we'd be far better off.

As an example if you and your family and all your friends were being stomped on constantly in your homeland /country by a powerful neighbor that controlled everything and had all the latest military armament and firepower, then you might resort to the use of actions that the citizens of said powerful nation would call terroristic.

We need to start acting like a neutral objective observer in the ME, instead of being 100% on one side. The world, Israel, and the Middle East would be far better off. We need to start talking and negotiating with everyone in the Middle East including Iran and Syria regardless of the Israeli Likud's position.

The Israeli trouncing and destruction of greater Lebanon because of the kidnapping of two soldiers this summer, changed my outlook 180 degrees on the ME. The attack by Israel was similar but in force far in excess of the broad and overwhelming attack on Falluja by US forces because of the deaths of the US mercenaries at the hands of some radicals several years ago.

[jcrew2001]

14. Israel

I agree, our support for Israel is affecting our ME policy and we need to talk with all the countries. In Europe there is a rise in anti-semitism because they view Israel as a source of conflict that is encouraging terrorism. I've never thought too much about Israel and I have many Jewish friends who probably disagree, but I feel that there needs to be greater acceptance of the muslim minority in Israel and the palestine terratory. Now that we've become embroiled in Iraq, I realize how much western occupation inflames terrorism.

[Robson]

15. Anti-Semitism

I agree. Anti-semitism doesn't come out of the blue and it doesn't help anyone. It comes out of resentment from those that believe they are mistreated, or have been discriminated against, or feel misrepresented or abused. If anti-Semitism exists there may be a reason as illustrated in the documentary movie by Levin, "Protocols of Elders of Zion".

[The Magistrate]

16. That Is An Odd Statement, Sir

What other racisms and bigotries do you feel can be justified by reference to the actions of individuals within the group that is the object of the collective hate expressed by the racist and the bigot?

[Lurking Dem]

17. THAT'S what you got out of that film?

Really?

It's Protocols of Zion, by the way.

[Robson]

18. Actually you are partially correct

OK you may be technically correct.

I have rented the DVD and thought it to be well done and in fact done very objectively by Mr Levin. Objectivity is an attribute that some unfortunately may have a problem with, and in fact one of the orthodox Jews in the prologue recommended that Mr Levin not touch the subject.

BTW the actual title referred to in the movie at various places is the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Prior to watching it I had never heard of that term, but that's what they used throughout. BTW there is a separate feature on the DVD that refers to the timeline that is titled that.

OK I'm a believer that every action generates an opposite reaction. Reactions and racism don't come out of the blue. They come out of actions. As I said in my post earlier I'm believer that Israel's actions against Lebanon and Palestine this summer were reckless and damaging to all parties and were not responsible.

Prior to that I believed strongly in Israel's right to defend itself unilaterally with any means at its disposal.

[The Magistrate]

20. You Do Not Seem To Be Clarifying This Well, Sir

The statement "racism doesn't come out of the blue" does not help the matter at all. Again, what other forms of racism and bigotry besides Anti-Semitism do you feel can be justified by reference to the actions of individuals within the group that is the object of the collective hate expressed by the racist and the bigot?

[Robson]

21. Blame leaders for racism and bigotry - not the people

What I'm trying to say is the same thing Marc Levin in the POZ said. Ideally racism and bigotry by itself is never acceptable in its own right by any race or ethnicity. It shouldn't happen and it normally doesn't occur amongst the masses. It's driven by leaders. Realistically we now see everyday Iraqis becoming anti-American racists because our planes and soldiers are killing innocent Iraqi civilians and families as part of Bush's war.

When friends and families and homes are wiped out by institutions and governments, the obvious response of victims is to become resentful and hateful towards those institutions. Call it racist or whatever, but that is the outcome. That is why governments need to fight only wars where civilian casualties are minimized to the greatest extent possible. That is why many more Lebanese are likely to be angry and racist with Israel than they were prior to the bombings this summer.

It may not be righteous or right, but racism is a by-product of the propaganda and actions of governments and leaders and it takes righteous leaders, not political hacks running countries to avoid this. And as Jimmy Carter said the by-product of this hate, is terrorism.

[The Magistrate]

22. Unfortunately, Sir, You Are Not Really Engaging The Point

The point is that you are employing a formulation that says in essence that bigotry is the result of actions by the people who are its object, which is the same as saying racism and bigotry are justifiable reactions to what the despised group actually does. Every dance around and away from direct engagement with this only digs you in deeper to the pit of it. The question remains: what forms of racism and bigotry do you feel can be justified by the actions of individuals within the group that is the object of the racist's and bigot's collective hate?

[Robson]

23. I'll try again

Magistrate says: "The point is that you are employing a formulation that says in essence that bigotry is the result of actions by the people who are its object, which is the same as saying racism and bigotry are justifiable reactions to what the despised group actually does. Every dance around and away from direct engagement with this only digs you in deeper to the pit of it. The question remains: what forms of racism and bigotry do you feel can be justified by the actions of individuals within the group that is the object of the racist's and bigot's collective hate?"

Thank for for asking. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss and debate. I'll try to make it clearer as my previous post was obviously not clear. Am I wrong or are you steering me towards stating a position that bigotry is sometimes justified based upon certain actions of the bigoted group? :) Indirectly I guess I could agree that occurs if a leader directs his people to become involved in such actions that would cause such hatred.

Racism and bigotry are not common emotions that everyday people display. They are emotions that unscrupulous leaders use to manipulate their people. Racism is also caused because of the actions of peoples and military at the behest of their leaders, such as those peoples exposed to the wrath of Atilla the Hun most likely looked towards the Huns with racism and hatred.

I give you Germany and Bosnia as two recent examples. And if it isn't too politically incorrect I could say that the leaders of Israel and Palestineans and Lebanese are also examples. The peoples at the grass roots generally don't hate and kill each other until their leaders manipulate them and cause hatred. People of all ethnic backgrounds can live happily as neighbors with each other and even inter-marry until the leaders decide they want to accumulate political power.

There is not much more I can say on this, except to say that peoples don't discriminate. But leaders stir up these emotions by direct genocidal actions of their people or they create reactive emotions in other people.

BTW friend, this is as deep as I can dig this pit. If you see mass discrimination, bigotry and hatred.....be assured there is a political hack or institution looking to gain power behind it (as in Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic, etc)

edited to move smiley.

[The Magistrate]

24. It Is Not A Question Of My Steering You, Sir

But of what the words you used in a particular order convey as the plainest meaning available from their sounds, and inviting you to recognize this and adopt an alternative means of conveying your position, if that is not the one you intended to communicate.

Every racist and bigot of my acquaintance has maintained his or her views of a hated group were nothing but the reasonable conclusion that any sensible person could be expected to draw from the behavior individuals of that group displayed routinely.

Your contention bigotry and racism are solely products of leaders' manipulation does not ring true to me at all. Dislike and distrust of the other seems one of the most basic human drives, operating so routinely and so strongly as to suggest some biological predisposition, probably rooted in the favoring of close kin under imperatives of genetic competition. Manipulation from the top is helpless to create feelings, it can only arouse to a higher pitch feelings that are already present.

It is certainly true that dislike and distrust of the other can be overcome, and the means of its overcoming is sufficient contact to render the other at least familiar. It is no accident that people living in more insular and homogeneous communities typically display less tolerance of difference than do persons living in more fluid and heterogenous communities.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. About bigotry and justification for it...

Every racist and bigot of my acquaintance has maintained his or her views of a hated group were nothing but the reasonable conclusion that any sensible person could be expected to draw from the behavior individuals of that group displayed routinely.

I've been discussing this sort of thing recently on my blog. As far as I'm concerned, there is no justification for bigotry, yet bigots will continually try to argue that what they say isn't bigotry because the group in question provoked them, and that what they're saying is merely 'strong words' or said because they're upset or angry. None of it washes...

[breakaleg]

26. I once had someone say a very disparaging remark about

a certain ethnic group. And when I pointed out that her husband's bosses wife was from that same group she said "oh, not those xxxx, those ones are like that" but it's the other ones that are. She had no clue that her statement was not only false but offensive.

[The Magistrate]

27. In A Very Few Instances, On Personal Acquaintance, Ma'am

My inclination has been to at least acknowledge it may have been come by honestly. Years ago two of my neighbors were a set of brothers, raised, if the word can be used, by drunks, who had spent most of their adolescence as two of the few white boys in the county's juvenile jail. Conditions in such places here have always been essentially those of race war, in which to even attempt neutrality is to be victimized by all, always, and not just some, occassionally. Not surprisingly, they professed extreme hatred and contempt for colored folk, and illustrated the root of it with suitable instances from their incarceration, most of which rang true enough to be believed at least rooted in real events. Both were intelligent, though absolutely without education, and good-hearted: in more favoreable circumstances they might have been strikingly different in their views and understandings. But as things were, they really never stood a chance.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. No, there's no justification for bigotry...

And if you think otherwise, it doesn't matter how many anecdotes you bring up, yr wrong...

Here's an anecdote for you. My grandfather was a POW during WWII, and his treatment at the hands of the Japanese affected him badly for the rest of his life. I used to try to avoid going to the shops with him coz the second he spotted anyone he thought was Japanese, he'd start making really loud bigoted comments about the Japanese. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out where his bigotry stemmed from, but knowing that doesn't make that bigotry any more acceptable...

[Robson]

29. Watch out for the alpha dog

Violet...I agree if we all could follow the idealistic teachings of religion. That's where we show our neighbors forgiveness, compassion and turn the other cheek when attacked, regardless of what was done to us. But that isn't possible for most and as we've seen, religion has been used more often than not for bad things. The recent killings of Amish children and the reaction of their community was one of the few times I've seen the principles of religion actually put to good use without hypocrisy.

I still strongly believe that shrewd manipulative leaders (religious & political) use our differences to create bigotry and division. We've seen it with Karl Rove and gays. It is used to create bigotry by highlighting differences and used to cause hate by actions against other peoples. I'll define shrewd manipulative leaders not just as prime ministers or dictators or a presidents of countries; they are alpha dogs and are just as often the leader of the local gang, pack or tribe or even a parent.

We need to all work hard to fight against manipulation and to form our own opinions and resist the manipulation of hate, but realistically there are lots of sheeple out there and for some it is not always possible.

I believe that Jimmy Carter was morally one of the best Presidents we've ever had and to accuse him of racism, etc. is a stretch indeed.

[The Magistrate]

31. The Phrase Was 'Come By It Honestly', Ma'am

To examine an individual's behavior, and conclude that taken as a whole someone is doing wrong but is not evil by nature, and may be more deserving of compassion than condemnation, is hardly the same thing as justification of their wrong actions. In my socializing with these two men, I did not allow their statements to go unchallenged, and did my best to educate them.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. So are you saying we must examine every bigots behaviour?

I'm just a bit confused as to why you responded to a post of mine where I agreed with the comment you were making and pointed out that I was discussing it and examples of people using excuses like anger etc on my blog. So, how does what you said relate in any way to the discussion of online bigotry?

[Robson]

19. Thank you!

Thanks friend for the reply as they are for some reason rare indeed, as I mentioned earlier in my one and only suggestion thread. That is except for the courteous members here that have welcomed me, which was greatly appreciated. Apparently the statement "anti-semitism" gets some attention here because prior to that it was like yelling "hello" into the Grand Canyon. I prefer debate and discussion as opposed to a one way conversation with myself.

Concerning your concern, I answered the question based upon my opinion. I agree with Jimmy Carter's statement in that regard btw.

[jcrew2001]

33. bigotry

I think the term "Anti-Semitism" is unique to racism/bigotry. First, it deals specifically with the Jewish people and their centuries struggle as a wondering people against non-Jews. It deals specifically with both current and historical conflicts against the Jewish race and religion.

Some people can separate the policy of Israel from "anti-semitism" but often times, both supporters of Israel and critics combine the two. Supporters of Israel may think that if you criticize Israeli policy, you are anti-Semetic, but critics may also elevate their frustration to levels of hatred.

I believe that Israel will always be fought over and it may never be possible to appease both sides. The Muslims won during the crusades, and now the war is still waging. Its not just land that is being fought, but the history of that land, and every group wants a piece of this land.

As for bigotry, I believe there are 2 forms. The first is when a person intentionally insults a race or ethnic group because he doesn't like them. The second is in the form of jokes, when a person does not realize that what he is saying is offensive, because they are friends with people of that ethnicity and are trying to fit in.

For some people who are racists or anti-Semites, those in the US don't really care about Israel or the Muslims. If people in the US are anti-Semites, they are that way because of their own insecurities and it has nothing to do with being mistreated.

In Europe, they are much closer to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the resentment of the conflict is encouraging anti-Semitism.