Thank you Jack! I’ve now written, revised and discarded several drafts as being too snarky.
I am certainly happy to discuss the datapoints and various interpretations of them, all while making no effort at all to hide what I believe the most likely cohesive explanations are, and why I feel that alternate explanations do not have the explanatory of predictive power of my analysis. (This is GD after all, why would I be posting here if I wasn’t willing to do that?)
I’m more than bored, however, with being accused of being a ‘Zionist traitor’ or being “sly” and not having the “courage” to state my position.
I think he wants peace in the Middle East. Unfortunately, he has convinced himself that Israel is the reason there isn’t any.
I would respectfully disagree that he wishes the destruction of Israel. The one-sidedness of his views means that he pushes for one side to make concessions regardless of the effect on the security of the other side.
As mentioned, he is making the same mistake with the terrorists as he did with the Soviet Union before Christmas 1979.
And I’d like you to justify your view of him as just a peacemaker, instead of just reciting that word as boilerplate.
But no matter.
Carter is objectively pro-Palestinian, so much so that President Clinton, without question the American President under which the Palestinian people caught the most breaks, called his book fictitious. I mentioned before his work directly for Arafat - how do you explain this?
The man is not a neutral party in this dispute. He seeks what he sees as justice for the Palestinian people. He may justify this as necessary to Israel’s survival, and in the abstract most Israelis would agree with him. They would diverge when Carter sided with the Palestinians against nearly any Israeli security measure, no matter how justified in the face of violence from Hamas or the radical factions of Fatah.
Thank you, Shodan. This is a logical and reasonable conclusion, which acknowledges, at least, that Carter seeks peace.
I do not say that Carter is always right in the way he pursues that goal. What galls me (and if you’ll go back, you’ll see this was the object of my first post in this thread) is Finn’s continuing suggestion that Carter has some other hidden and sinister motive.
Mr. Moto, Carter may well believe that justice is on the Palestinian side of this dispute, and that Israel must make concessions to achieve peace. But peace is still the goal.
This is, perhaps, somewhat in line with what I’m saying. In Carter’s view, he may even feel that hamstringing Israel and empowering Hamas (and Islamic Jihad, and Fatah, and…), while putting Hamas within rocket range of Tel Aviv, would ultimately lead to peace and justice. I think he may very well be willing to make an omlet by ‘breaking a few eggs’, and is willing to sacrifice Israeli lives on the hope that Hamas might eventually be reformed. I know for a fact that he is willing to lie, distort and fabricate in order to make it seem that there are no real security concerns that Israel would have to worry about, were his demands implemented.
However, I believe that such a situation cannot accurately be called an agenda for peace, even if Carter calls it that, or even if he actually believes it. I, personally, would argue that Carter places what he views as justice above what I think most people would view as peace.
In other words, it is an agenda for what he sees as justice, with peace perhaps being a secondary or tertiary consequence, and certainly not his primary aim. I cannot find a coherent scenario whereby putting Hamas within rocket range of every single Israel city, before making sure that Hamas was fully pledged to peace, could be seen as making peace as a primary concern.
And as I’ve argued, I feel that the facts support a verdict that if his plan for “justice” were to be put through, that it would result in the exact opposite of peace.
I’m not sure if this was directed at me… but just in case there’s any confusion, I want to clear up that I am not claiming that Carter wants to destroy Israel.
And despite spoke’s bizarre insistence that he finally wants to see what’s been posted several times in this thread, in at least one post that he responded to and quoted from to boot… I have also said, and maintain, that I cannot hazard a guess as to Carter’s long term/emotional/intellectual goals, because of his pattern of deception.
I do know that I am not at all comfortable taking him at his word, and that means that I don’t know what his real goals are. He’s clearly strongly anti-Israel, or perhaps more accurately, an ideologue, a partisan for Palestinian claims. That much is certain. But as to what he ultimately wants beyond sacrificing Israel’s security for his view of “justice”? I’m really not sure. Honestly and truly, just not sure. And I won’t pretend otherwise simply because insults are cast at me for not buying into Carter’s PR.
On preview, I see I agree to a large extent with Moto.
You mean, I take it: what galls you is your imaginary, spurious, strawman-based flight of fantasy that I’m doing any such thing? Despite me spilling copious amounts of ink, in at least one post you quoted from and respond to, spelling out exactly what I’m saying?
Just wanted to make sure we’re on the same page here.
Between that and all the David Duke quotes, I can’t imagine anyone thought poor little innocent you were trying to convince us Carter is an anti-Semite with a hidden agenda.
…
Could’ve sworn there was already a post on that “fruit”. One that, maybe, you already quoted and responded to.
But an interesting hack job of an article you provide with that cite.
So they explicitly say they won’t recognize Israel, but saying they’ll agree to a truce is somehow an “implicit” recognition of Israel? You do recognize how very, very laughable that is, right?
Especially with Hamas’ actual record of talking about what a truce, or more accurately hudna, means to them?
So sure, if we forget about Hamas’ history, ideology, terminology with a current, explicit statement that they don’t recognize Israel that’s spun into "implicit’ recognition since they say they’ll wait ten years before going back to trying to ethnically cleanse Israel. :rolleyes:
Edit:
Mmm hmm. You mean, the David Duke quotes that, in context, had nothing to do with Carter? The quotes that, in context, were a direct reply to Argent (not “out of the blue” as you so confusedly stated), and were about the acceptability of certain phrases in public discourse? Those quotes?
And, of course, you missed, in a post you quoted from and responded to, where I defined exactly what I found to be vile, despite your amazing lack of comprehension?
Okay. Let’s accept for a moment, for the sake of argument, that this is indeed true.
If Carter is indeed a pro-Palestinian advocate (and even, perhaps, pro-Hamas) why should Israel accept him as some sort of neutral broker or facilitator? They certainly are under no obligation to do that, and they seem to find the notion frankly quite distasteful.
Aren’t they entitled to that opinion? If Carter is entitled to talk with whoever he likes in this matter, doesn’t this apply to other leaders and even ordinary citizens in the region?
I think Carter has rounded the bend of “dangerously naive” and is headed deep into “willful ignorance” territory. But I bet he is sincere in his belief that Israel’s concerns for her safety are exaggerated, and that Hamas would make nice if Israel stopped ‘provoking’ her by, well, refusing to participate in Carter’s folie a dieux and acting to secure her own safety.
Although I wonder if Carter (based on his Sunday School quotes and what he said to Meir) actually harbors some notion that Israel is being punished by God by being subject to terrorist attacks and the intifada, because they have not “turned again to the Lord” as the Old Testament says. It may even be possible that Carter sees himself as a quasi-prophetic figure in preaching to the Jews what he sees as the will of God. I don’t know that he even would have a clear idea of what Israel should do, apart from accepting his ideas wholesale and damn the consequences.
I think all he wants is a peace treaty, regardless of the subsequent consequences. The Camp David accords are pretty much the only undoubted achievement of Carter’s rather ineffectual tenure, and thus Carter would seize on the notion of a treaty as vindication for his ideas.
Nor can I, and it is difficult to keep a clear distinction between “objectively pro-Palestinian” (as Mr. Moto puts it) and actual malice towards Israel. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas, and the more warmly you support those who are actually dedicated to the destruction of Israel, the harder it is to distinguish yourself from them.
No, no one in particular.
As mentioned, I think Carter has convinced himself of who the bad guys are, and the rest of his position is based on that.
Wait a cotton picking minute here. Are you claiming that I’m just out to do a character assasination of Carter, by somehow “insinuating” he’s an anti-semite? Because I quoted a source where someone, reading Carter’s incredible statements, came to the conclusion he didn’t like Jews?
My position (for which I’ve quoted copious evidence) is that various things that Carter has published demonstrate that he has a religious motivation for his non-objective stance on the Mideast senario.
This was in direct reply to a challege, comming from you I believe, to state exactly what we believe motivates Carter other than anti-semitism.
Now you are up to your tricks again, demanding we state what we think his "ultimate conclusion is “for all to see”. Why do I get the feeling that, no matter what we answer, it will be further proof of “we all just want to smear Carter”?
Well, I’m willing to answer: I believe that Carter thinks that Israel must make every concession asked, because it is a land of special Biblical concern - and unless and until it returns to its true religious path, it can never prosper (and should not be aided to prosper by others). This is more or less exactly what he said to Golda, and I for one see no reason to disbelieve his own statement on the subject.
First off, thank you very much.
I’m surprised that none of Carter’s defenders have engaged in a rational analysis of his motives, and it takes someone who is critical of Carter to meet me half way. My hat is off to you.
Perhaps… I can see how that argument would be made. But I really can’t fully wrap my mind around just how deep a well of willful ignorance Carter would have to be drawing on, especially since he’s been there.
I mean, for instance, take the “no Israelis killed by Hamas since 2004” claim. Only a few things are possible, as I see it.
-Carter doesn’t care about the truth, at all, and so doesn’t even take the time to learn the facts, just makes them up. This, I think, would be even worse than him knowing the facts and deliberately getting them wrong.
-Carter knew that there had been attacks, but felt his story and his agenda would better be served by claiming that there were no attacks, and thus casting the Israeli government as irrational, warmongering rejectionists.
-Carter vaguely remembered something, and instead of taking 30 seconds to google, just went with his ‘gut’. And I do mean 30 seconds, a google search for “Hamas takes responsibility 2004” has thisas the third hit.
-Jimmy Carter is senile, and has no clue what the fuck is going on.
I can’t help but find the second of the four possibilities to be far more persuasive, although I can accept that others find other possibilities more likely (although, of course, I still think that they’re wrong ).
Have I missed any possibilities?
I’d say that is a possible, and maybe even a plausible analysis… but again, I’m not quite sure what he really thinks and what the contents of his mind are when he’s alone with his soul at 3:00 a.m. on sleepless nights.
See, I can certainly agree with that (with the caveat that he believes that a peace treaty can be reached by hamstringing Israel). However, I’d also hasten to add that supporting a peace treaty does not mean you actually support peace, especially since all facts point to such a treaty being a sham unless groups like Hamas actually wanted an end to violence, or were successfully marginalized and defanged.
That, in a nutshell, is my point about not taking him at his word. As I said above, I simply cannot wrap my mind around the degree of willful ignorance it would take for Carter to be quite that clueless. I think that supporting a “peace treaty” which would be more observed in the breach, puts paid to any claims of being an advocate for peace. I simply cannot credit Carter, unless he’s senile, with actually being so unaware of the situation that he thinks a peace treaty with Hamas as it currently exists, would be anything but a sham.
It’s one thing for people on a message board who don’t know a lot about the situation to talk about how misunderstood Hamas is. It’s quite another for Carter, who’s actually been there, and would have seen Hamas recruiting, and glorification of suicide bombers, and incitement to genocide, and spewing blatant anti-Semitism. The most convincing analysis, to me, is that Carter knows what Hamas is, knows that a peace treaty wouldn’t bring peace, but is prepared to then go and blame Israel for the peace treaty failing. Perhaps, as you’ve said, thinking that he’s securing his legacy in the process.
Hamas or its sympathizers told him, and he believed it.
No argument here - I wouldn’t trust Hamas any further than I could drop-kick them, and Carter’s notion that it is Israel who is to blame for the intransigence of the terrorists would be funny if less were at stake.
You’re young, or at least younger than I am.
And unfortunately, the idea that there is always a simple answer to a difficult problem is a characteristically American delusion.
Carter is an old man, and he wants desperately to believe in himself as a great statesman, and his Presidency as something other than a bad joke. If a peace treaty were signed, I doubt if Carter would live long enough to see it breached.
Hmmm, well done, I hadn’t even considered that. It would, of course, make Jimmuh a rather incurious fellow.
It’d also make him a shill for Hamas.
That might very well be, I’ll gnaw on it some more.
Could quite possibly be the case. I still think he knows the score, but perhaps you’re right. In any case, you’ve done yeoman’s service and at least constructed a cohesive analysis s to what might be driving Carter. To be fair, I also owe Malthus an apology as he certainly did the same, just not in response to me. I had forgotten about his contribution earlier in the thread, and I didn’t mean to exclude him.
Anybody else who I’ve missed, who made an attempt to provide a cogent framework in which to view his actions: thank you very much for your contribution to this thread. And my apologies for not mentioning you by name.
As proof, I would refer back to Carter’s recent pronouncement, following his meeting with Hamas in Egypt, that the situation in Gaza was one where Gazans are being “starved to death” and that this is worse than “the poorest parts of Africa” - in spite of not having been there (and the fact that the UN organization on the scene isn’t claiming any state of “starvation”). And of course that this is all Israel’s fault and a “crime” on Israel’s part.
It would appear that, to Carter, Hamas is a reliable source of fact, and in fact more reliable than any other - or at least, he seemingly has no problems parroting what they tell him.
That could very well be true. I have to admit, you and Shodan have at least put forward a case that’s made me question my interpretation… albeit not shaken my feeling that it’s the most likely explanation.
I’d note, however, that although your link certainly does provide strong circumstantial evidence (unless I missed something?), it’s not necessarily clear that Hamas told him that and he repeated it, or it was a lie he’d been cooking up that he used, after the meeting, to deflect attention and the course of discussion from Hamas’ goals and agenda to his lie that Israel was trying to commit genocide upon the people of Gaza by starving them to death. Man, what I wouldn’t give to have been a fly on that wall.
So? What is your point? Of what importance to this discussion is the motivation of any poster?
As a poster, I find your apparent desperate need to uncover hidden motivations in other posters to be unseemly.
As Moderator, I find your attempts to uncover hidden motivations disruptive.
This discussion is supposed to address the propriety of Shin Bet’s reaction to President Carter’s trip to Palestine (which would include an examination of Mr. Carter’s actions and words to which the Israelis may react). It has nothing to do with the “agendas” of any other poster. Debate the facts and logic of the posts. If a poster, of whatever persuasion, posts an error of fact or logic, challenge that post. If you feel an overwhelming need to delve into the psyches of other posters, do it by e-mail or in the Pit.
).