Shin bet to (Ex) pres. Jimmy Carter "Drop Dead!"

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Of course, in order to make your glib little jab, you have to deliberately ignore that when W&M used the phrase “Israel Lobby”, they were specifically going far beyond AIPAC to talk about a shadowy cabal of even ideological opponents including, for instance, the WSJ and NYT.

So in other words, it is slander, as it’s absolutely untrue.
And you can only make your case by acting as if what aint, is.

Good try though.
[/QUOTE]

“Sugartits, are you a Jew?”

/Mel Gibson

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
To paraphrase Amos Oz, real tragedy is when both antagonists have legitimate grievances.
[/QUOTE]

Sadly, too true.

We have been wrangling about this issue seemingly forever.
I view the Israel issue as THE most important factor in our era, as it has spawned so much violence, misinformation, disruption and hatred within the ME and the rest of the world.

Is there any rational basis for hating Jews, whom are arguably the most persecuted and dispersed race/religion of peoples in the history of mankind?

[Spoke]

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Is there any rational basis for hating Jews, whom are arguably the most persecuted and dispersed race/religion of peoples in the history of mankind?
[/QUOTE]

Jews, no.

Israel, maybe. If you happen to be a Palestinian with a legitimate grievance.

And once again, “Jews” should not be conflated with “Israel.” And vice versa.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Jews, no.

Israel, maybe. If you happen to be a Palestinian with a legitimate grievance.

And once again, “Jews” should not be conflated with “Israel.” And vice versa.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that’s an easy (and often dangerous) conflation to make, and I guess I am as guilty of it as any other.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=spoke-]
I don’t see how anyone could read your posts and doubt your loyalty to Israel, come hell or high water.
[/QUOTE]
Such advocacy, however, does not imply a “dual” loyalty (particularly when such a phrase its typically used to indicate that a person would subvert the primary loyalty one owes to support what should be a less compelling loyalty.

I have no reason to believe that you are accusing FinnAgain of such a misalignment of interests, but I see no reason for it to become or continue as a point of discussion in this thread.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
“Sugartits, are you a Jew?”

/Mel Gibson
[/QUOTE]

Heh. In case it wasn’t clear, I was responding to spoke’s curiously egregiously wrong gloss of the “Israel Lobby” slander. Got a bit delayed and forgot to preview a second time.

[DMC]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Read anything by Sevastopol, lately?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but obviously not everything he’s ever posted. Mind linking to a post where he displays the behavior he’s accused of, so I can see for myself?

[FinnAgain]

Check post 156, part of which has already been quoted. I’ll requote it:

I think I recall the evidence you are referring to. However, as I recall the document makes the point that the Israelis are so deep in falsehood and malevolence, so committed to expressing the corruption at their moral core that every quality of humanity is moribund, with their lust for ethnic cleansing and dispossession. They are dead already, in every way that matters.

The “document”, if I followed the quote-counter-quote posts correctly, is the Hamas charter.
Among the other claims about the “falsehood and malevolence” of “the Israelis” (which Hamas routinely conflates with “The Jews”)?

You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.

And just because I’ve seen this dance before, the next line in some posters’ rhetorical bag of tricks would be to say something along the lines of “Hamas is just bigoted against Israelis, not racist against Jews.”

Also from the charter:

We should not forget to remind every Moslem that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that “Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women.”

Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. “May the cowards never sleep.”

Notice, of course, a clear delineation (and attack upon) Israel, Judaism and the Jews.

There are of, course, other posts he’s made, but I have no idea what rules this thread is now being guided by and I don’t want to risk my posting status on it… as I said earlier, I may have time to draft a PM, perhaps.

[DMC]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Check post 156, part of which has already been quoted. I’ll requote it:

The “document”, if I followed the quote-counter-quote posts correctly, is the Hamas charter.
Among the other claims about the “falsehood and malevolence” of “the Israelis” (which Hamas routinely conflates with “The Jews”)?
[/QUOTE]
I’m thoroughly confused. I read that as him paraphrasing the Hamas Charter, not voicing a personal opinion about Israel. What am I missing?

[FinnAgain]

Check your PM’s please.

[Spoke]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I have no reason to believe that you are accusing FinnAgain of such a misalignment of interests, but I see no reason for it to become or continue as a point of discussion in this thread.
[/QUOTE]

Nor do I. Finn raised the topic out of the blue.

[FinnAgain]

I see you’re still posting…

I notice that you’ve provided absolutely no retraction of your bizarre reference to AIPAC when, if you’d actually read The Israel Lobby, you’d know that it was a slander and certainly didn’t focus on AIPAC, at all.
Would you like to admit, now, that The Israel Lobby was a slanderous hack job, filled with numerous factual, logical and methodological errors ? One that displayed either near super-human sloppiness in research, or a clear and deliberate agenda to, for instance take quotes out of context and twist them until they meant the exact opposite of what they actually said. When freakin’ Benny Morris rips you to pieces, using only facts and logic, you know you’re well and proper fucked.

And your bizarre reference to AIPAC was either a red herring, or a simple non sequitor fallacy.

[

The problems start with the definition. The Israel lobby, write Mearsheimer and Walt, is “a convenient shorthand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations” working “to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.” The lobby, as they see it, includes both hard-line groups such as AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and CUFI (Christians United For Israel) and dovish groups such as the Israel Policy Forum, the Tikkun Community, and Americans for Peace Now. All of these groups agree that Israel ought to be defended, and the groups and individuals in the lobby work in various ways to shape U.S. policy toward the Jewish state along what they consider to be favorable lines, but they have occasionally deep divisions over exactly what policies are best for Israel.

Mearsheimer and Walt say clearly that the lobby is neither conspiratorial nor antipatriotic. They concede that the overwhelming majority of those involved sincerely believe that what is best for Israel is best for the United States, and vice versa. Moreover, the tendency to reflexively support the Israeli government has diminished over time. And individual groups that are part of the lobby have broken with Israeli policies at various points, even if the largest groups tend to embrace hard-line views.

Still, questions arise. If everyone from AIPAC to Americans for Peace Now is part of the lobby, what, exactly, is the political agenda the lobby supports? And if a variety of U.S. policies are consonant with the different agendas of different components of the lobby, what criteria should be used to measure the impact of the lobby as a whole? What is the relationship between the internal dynamics of this divided lobby and the politics and policies of both Israel and wider American society?

When it comes down to it, Mearsheimer and Walt do not seem to know who, exactly, belongs to this amoebic, engulfing blob they call the lobby and who does not. Take their own case. They describe themselves as pro-Israel, in that they believe in the state’s right to exist. They admire its achievements and wish secure and prosperous lives for its citizens. They state categorically that the United States should aid Israel “if its survival is in danger.” They frequently argue that current Israeli policies and U.S. support for them are counterproductive – that is, Washington should make its aid to Israel more conditional not because the two states do not share interests but precisely because they do. Conditional aid, Mearsheimer and Walt believe, will lead Israel to act in ways that ensure its survival while also benefiting the United States. And they care so passionately about this that they have written a long and controversial book on the subject. “We are obviously not part of the Israel lobby,” they say. But under their own definition, is that really true?

](Jerusalem Syndrome)

Whoops, eh?

[Spoke]

Here’s Salon’s piece on The Israel Lobby.

In it, Michelle Goldberg says the authors overstate their case, but admits that they are addressing a real phenomenon.

And in the context of our current debate I couldn’t help noticing this interesting quote:

On the surface, the whole imbroglio seemed like the latest version of a story that has replayed itself countless times in the last few years. A public figure strays outside the boundaries of acceptable opinion about Israel, or calls attention to the disproportionate influence wielded by supporters of Israel’s right-wing political factions, and is immediately attacked as a bigot or a paranoid. It happened to Howard Dean during the Democratic primary, when he said that the United States should be “evenhanded” in its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, admonished him; an Israeli newspaper suggested that his Jewish backing would dry up; and Nancy Pelosi wrote him an angry open letter.

Maybe if Carter had read the article before his book was published, he’d have known what was in store for him. Certainly seems to prefigure this thread, no?

[FinnAgain]

Funny… not a word of retraction.
Or a single word addressing the numerous falsehoods and slime that Walt and Mearsheimer used, or how you were amazingly wrong with your red herring fallacy about AIPAC, or how Carter’s book, which you’re still defending, was poorly received by many because it was riddled with lies, distortions, omissions and outright fabrications.

We’re three pages into a thread about Carter and Israel, I posted links verifying Carter’s lies at the start of this thread, and still all of his apologists either want to change the subject, simply avoid addressing his lies, or totally ignore them while pretending that his poor reaction was because he was critical of Israel. Not one person who supports Carter, not one, has even addressed his many lies, even in passing.

I’m shocked.
Shocked.

[Alessan]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
To paraphrase Amos Oz, real tragedy is when both antagonists have legitimate grievances.
[/QUOTE]

Ain’t that the truth.

I think that’s why I, like most other native-born Israelis. don’t really think of Hamas and its ilk as anti-semites. To me , clasical antisemitism - which I’ve never encountered in person - is something illogical, incomprehensible. It appears out of nowhere and is based on nothing, which is why it’s so frightening. How can you deal with people who invent hatred out of whole cloth?

What we have with the Arabs is something different. Nations, throughout history, have always fought wars, over land, resources, and past grievences; sometimes the wars go on for a very long time; and it’s very hard to fight someone for a long time without hating them just a little. Now, I happen to believe that the Palestinians have taken that hatred much too far than is healthy for us and for themselves, but at least the hatred comes from somewhere that makes sense. I can deal with that. “Western” antisemitism, though, I just don’t get, and because of that - and despite the fact that that right now, it’s much less of an overt theat - it scares me so much more.

[Spoke]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
We’re three pages into a thread about Carter and Israel, I posted links verifying Carter’s lies at the start of this thread…
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t see anything like that. I saw a lot of quibbling over details, and then use of that quibbling as a springboard to call Carter a liar.

Funny… not a word of retraction.

Yes that is funny. And sad. There seems to be not one whit of remorse for the character assassination directed at Carter.

I suppose it is to be expected. After all, the guy is clearly motivated by crazy evangelical notions. Like this one:

Blessed are the peacemakers…

[FinnAgain]

Still no retraction on the red herring/non sequitor fallacy that tried to disguise the fact that Walt and Mearsheimer certainly weren’t just talking about AIPAC in The Israel Lobby. Not one word about the numerous factual, methodological and logical errors in The Israel Lobby, either. An ad hominem fallacy alleging that all the specific and factual rebuttals to Carter’s lies were really just because he was critical of Israel, and you know how those Israel Firsters get, eh, eh? And, as a bonus, an attempt to cast verifiable and verified lies as “quibbles”. Good tu quoque fallacy though.
My apologies, spoke, for responding to your posts as they were appropriate for GD. I’ll be happy to treat your posts as IMHO posts in the future and just skip right over 'em, unless, of course, your distortions force me to fight ignorance and prevent people from being misinformed.

I still take the board’s mission statement seriously.

Just for those reading along, who didn’t see my initial cites and might actually think that spoke is accurately relating something:
About Carter being a serial liar… here are a few of those “quibbles”.

Notice, for instance, they include:

[ol]
[li]lying about UN resolutions[/li][li]lying about the security fence[/li][li]lying about Camp David[/li][li]lying about Oslo[/li][li] lying about armistice lines[/li][li] lying about Israeli control of Lebanon after the UN certified Israeli withdrawal[/li][li]lying about the history of US policy[/li][li]lying about the PA’s official acceptance of the “Road Map”[/li][li] lying about Arafat and his PLO wanting to destroy Israel[/li][li]lying and claiming that Hamas had not killed “a single Israeli” since 2004, when they had publicly taken responsibility for more than two dozen murders in that time period[/li][li] lying about Israel initiating hostilities in the 1967 war[/li][li]lying and claiming that the Prisoners’ Document somehow called for acceptance of Israel within the pre-1967 borders[/li][li] lying and claiming that Barak never accepted Clinton’s final proposal even though he did agree and lying that Israel wanted to keep the Jordan Valley, when instead Barak had agreed to a 36 month phased withdrawal[/li][li]lying and claimed that Sharon steadfastly refused to negotiate with Abbas when in fact they held a summit together which resulted in a negotiated truce, among other things[/li][li]lying that the security barrier was built entirely on Palestinian territory when even the UN certified that this was not so.[/li][li]etc…[/li][/ol]

The apologia for Carter is strong on this board.

Can you imagine if someone who wasn’t anti-Israel had made those sorts of “mistakes” about the Palestinians? Do you think they’d be cut as much slack?
Can you imagine Dopers calling it a “quibble” if someone actually claimed that since 2004 the IDF hadn’t killed a single Palestinian? And, in context, was using that lie to demonize the Palestinians?

But when Carter claims that since 2004 Hamas hadn’t killed a single Israeli, why, only a quibbler could possibly find fault!

[Spoke]

Well, follow that thought FinnAgain. If you really believe Carter is telling “Lies!” about the situation (as opposed to simply making factual errors), then what, do you suppose, is his motivation for doing all this “Lying!”?

Is 83-year-old Carter on some final malevolent campaign to destroy Israel? Really? If this is what you really think, I want to hear you say it. Step up and own your innuendo.

Because I think the guy is motivated by a sincere desire to encourage peace. Is his method flawed? Maybe. I don’t know. What I do know is that he is not acting out of malice, and to suggest otherwise is, as I said before, vile.

[elucidator]

Despite the crystal clarity of Finn’s argument and the kindly and serene nature of his persuasion, you remain unconvinced? Boy, some people!

[FinnAgain]

Some more on Carter’s nature as an habitual liar on this topic, and why Israel was not only right to doubt his good intentions, but certainly right to limit his ability to carry out his agenda since the man simply cannot be trusted:

[

on Monday, Nov. 26, Carter had the following exchange with Terry Gross of National Public Radio’s “Fresh Air”:

GROSS: My impression from the book is that there is parts of the Camp David agreement that you think Israel has failed to follow. Am I right?

Pres. CARTER: Yeah. That's correct.

GROSS: What are they, and I'm wondering too how that affects your reaction to Israel, if you are, like, personally disappointed in Israel because you negotiated these peace talks and you think Israel hasn't completely complied with them

Pres. CARTER: Well, at Camp David, Menahem Begin, prime minister of Israel, agreed to withdraw the political and military forces of Israel from the occupied territories, and the Israeli Knesset, the parliament, approved this commitment. Menahem Begin also signed the Camp David Accords, which include specifically United Nations Resolution 242. And one of the phrases in there confirms the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and also requires Israel to withdraw from occupied territories. Those commitments, freely made by Prime Minister Begin and approved by the Israel government at the time, have not been honored, and instead the Israelis have continued to occupy additional Palestinian land and, in effect, confiscated it and then to colonize it and then to connect those isolated more than 200 settlements with each other and with Jerusalem. All providing obstacles to any sort of peace process unless will withdraw from those territories. So in a number of ways, Israel has defaulted on the Camp David Accords.

[…]

The next day, on Tuesday, Nov. 27, during his appearance on “Good Morning America,” Carter tells host Robin Roberts:

And I think the most important step toward peace for Israel was when I negotiated a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979, and not a word of that peace treaty has been violated.  

](Jimmy Carter Can’t Make Up His Mind | CAMERA)

Someone who feels comfortable telling a 100% different, diametrically opposed story within a one day period is certainly not someone who you want to take at their word.
I’m not even curious to see exactly how someone would rationalize how Carter could, within a one day period, state two diametrically opposed stories, about an event which he was present at.