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

[FinnAgain]

For a bit more on Hamas: this clip was about ten days old when Carter was making his pronouncements about how “Hamas’ much-quoted intention of destroying Israel is now “ancient history,””

From MEMRI’s transcript (mods, I think this falls under Fair Use, as the site specifically says that materials can be used as long as they’re properly attributed to MEMRI):

Following are excerpts from an interview with Hamas Culture Minister 'Atallah Abu Al-Subh, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on April 9, 2008.

'Atallah Abu Al-Subh: I return to this book – The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - time and again. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the faith that every Jew harbors in his heart. This book was published by Al-Nafiza publishers in Cairo. The research was conducted by Ahmad Hijaz Al-Saqqa and Hisham Khadhr, and the introduction was written by Dr. 'Ali Gum’a, who later became, and still is, the Mufti of Egypt. Al-'Aqqad once called this a “hellish” book, in his introduction to the translation by Mahmoud Khalifa Al-Tunisi, which is the most famous translation, which fate had me read in 1971 or 1972. I picked up this book again, so that I could present excerpts to readers throughout the Arab and Islamic world. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Their Biblical and Talmudic Roots. I’d like to read just one paragraph, before the producer tells me that our time is up. “It is well known that Ahad Ha’am was the spiritual mentor of [Chaim] Weizmann. It is not surprising that Weizmann admitted in his 1948 memoirs…” By the way, we may review his memoirs, Trial and Error, one day. "He admitted that Ahad Ha’am was his mentor, and he also admitted that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is nothing but a wicked Jewish conspiracy to control the world. Weizmann unequivocally described this conspiracy as wicked. This book, which Al-'Aqqad described as “hellish” in his introduction to the Mahmoud Khalifa Al-Tunisi translation… The Jews deny this book exists, but Weizmann admits it. Everything we see in the Arab region and around the world - the evil of the Jews, their deceit, their cunningness, their warmongering, their control of the world, and their contempt and scorn for all the peoples of the world, which they consider to be animals, cockroaches, lizards, snakes, and despicable maggots that need to be stepped on – Like [Rabbi] Ovadia [Yosef] said… The Jews say all these things, especially in the first of these protocols.

Now, no, this does not directly reference Carter’s claim that Hamas no longer wants to destroy Israel. Then again, Hamas itself hasn’t said that they’ve dropped that as a desire, nor have their changed their charter, nor have they stopped genocidal incitement aimed at children, etc…
So I think we can take Carter’s effort at being their spokesman with a watermelon sized grain of salt.

It sure seems, from where I sit, then when the official position of Hamas is that they stand against “the evil of the Jews, their deceit, their cunningness, their warmongering, their control of the world, and their contempt and scorn for all the peoples of the world”… well, they’re probably not quite ready to negotiate peace. Especially since, remember, Hamas is perfectly capable of delineating between Israel, Jews and Judaism. That they choose to make this about “the Jews” speaks to the fact that their anger and hostility go beyond Israel and that even if Israel’s policies changed, as long as there were enough Jews there, Hamas would still be enraged.

Respectfully, I have to disagree with Alessan’s interpretation of “western” anti-Semitism and “Hamas style” anti-Semitism. If the latter was just confined to Israelis, for example, while it would still be bigotry it would also at least be understandable in the context of two long time enemies and the emotional relationship between them. It also wouldn’t be anti-Semitism, but anti-Israelism (or something). And, heck, in that case I’d imagine, Hamas would also be talking about how much they hate Israeli Christians and Muslims (remember, a very large percentage of Israel is non-Jewish). But they don’t talk about them all that much, do they?
The problem, as I pointed out, is that Hamas has no problem attacking, conflating and hating, separately or as a group, Israel, Jews or Judaism. I don’t see, for instance, hating all Jews and Judaism, believing that there really is an evil conspiracy to rule the world, as any more rational than “western” anti-Semitism.

And these are the people whose image Carter is tirelessly trying to change, as he plays their PR frontman, spokesman and apologist.

The important part, I think, is that this bit of racist incitement is the official view being promulgated by the Hamas Culture Minister. These are the views that Hamas official Culture Minister wants to be part of the culture. After all the work they’ve done to try to marginalize and contain Hamas, to have Carter come in, fabricate like a motherfuck, demonize Israel for not accepting Hamas ‘peaceful’ nature, and in general do as much as he can to improve Hamas’ image regardless of and without caring if there are actually any improvement in Hamas’ nature? I can definitely understand Israeli politicians not wanting to give him the time of day.

[Sevastopol]

@DSeid

Sev, those were annual numbers. I apologize for having stated that imprecisely. No adjustment for inflation or deflation for that matter. No, I have no single site comparing those figures. My reference was for total spending in Iraq by the US.

The insight remains the same. During Carter the United States gave Israel more money than it did during many other administrations. A significant portion was to help implement the Camp David accords. And you are entitled to believe that such should have bought Carter the private citizen some honor in Israel in future years no matter what he has said or done since, or is doing now. But Israel is entitled to place a higher level of importance on those other things.

In summary, the level of aid was beyond compare. Not merely as regards Israel, but in human history. This is the empirical evidence.

Your point about the quid pro quo is well taken. However, we should be discussing the Israeli attitude to that aid. On one hand, a shower of weighty blessings given gratis attracts less than the basic courtesies. On the other hand, within the United States, it is radical talk to mention the withholding of that aid, under any circumstances, such as the most direct affront to the US’s wishes, vis driving the indigenous people from the ancestral farms and homes at gunpoint. In short, arrogance and entitlement. How did this come about? More to follow.

[Sevastopol]

@tomndebb

As a poster, I find your apparent desperate need to uncover hidden motivations in other posters to be unseemly…
[ /Modding ]

Choose your own caption.

By now you will have realised that Weirddave has declined to supply the evidence on which he claimed that Hamas has a coherent plan to liquidate the entire Jewish ethnicity of Israel. To wit genocide. Being as that’s a large claim, some plain and unambiguous evidence was doubtless his source.

So it’s a pity he declines to pony up. Firstly, my position would be completely vindicated, in differing to the effect that Hamas holds Israelis are already dead on account of the degradation in their nature. Yet, nowhere does Hamas go further than that observation.

Secondly, a blow against ignorance. As no-one else is making that extraordinary calumny, it could be enough to leave it there. But the blow is not final. As you’re aware the claim, while false, will persist through Weirddave and others.

To what end? I used to believe it was merely to agitate Americans so as to keep an uncritical flow of aid money to Israel. The text was, Palestinians are really the Nazis pt II & we need your cash. On further reflection, there are other reasons, one above all. Hate speech is functional. It is an identity. With the frenzy of hate speech and historical injuries, it is that much easier to brutalise your society to something less than civilised. Which is what has happened. Hate speech is part of the chorus and anthem of support for Israel.

Not that this is necessarily the case with Weirddave individually. He may merely have realised hatred of Palestinians is the acceptable face of racism in America. But as you say inquiries into the mysteries of individual motives are not kosher.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

<<snip>>

@Sevastopol

To what end? I used to believe it was merely to agitate Americans so as to keep an uncritical flow of aid money to Israel. The text was, Palestinians are really the Nazis pt II & we need your cash. On further reflection, there are other reasons, one above all. Hate speech is functional. It is an identity. With the frenzy of hate speech and historical injuries, it is that much easier to brutalise your society to something less than civilised. Which is what has happened. ** Hate speech is part of the chorus and anthem of support for Israel.**

<<snip>>

That hate speech you refer to cuts both ways, and therein lies the rub.
And whom ever referred to the Palestinians as Nazis?

Is it your assertion, then, that Israel is defined by hate speech? As opposed to, say, Hamas?
:dubious:

[Spoke]

@tomndebb

So? What is your point? Of what importance to this discussion is the motivation of any poster?

If the motivation of a poster is slander, I shall make it my business, sir. As a mod, you should, too.

[tomndebb]

@spoke-

If the motivation of a poster is slander, I shall make it my business, sir. As a mod, you should, too.

Motivation does not enter into it.

If the remarks are slanderous, that will be proven by the failure of the facts or the logic. It would be entirely possible to reach identical conclusions (good, bad, or indifferent) regardless of motivation.

We have lots of posters who hate George Bush and a few who admire him. We have posters who hate or love Hillary Clinton. Some of their admiration or hatred is based on a rational examination of the public figure’s actions compared to the poster’s world view. Some of the admiration or hatred is based on an emotional response to the public figure’s personality. Their motivation is not relevant to any discussion on this boiard–only the facts and logic supporting their belief.

Drop the questions about motivation.

[Spoke]

@tomndebb

Drop the questions about motivation.

Cite me a rule.

[tomndebb]

@spoke-

Cite me a rule.

Don’t be a jerk.
[ /Moderating ]

[Spoke]

Fiat. Got it.

[tomndebb]

More like Lamborghini.

[Spoke]

May I assume that questioning other posters’ motivations will be verboten to all from this point forward?

If so, you’re going to be a busy man.

[FinnAgain]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

Is it your assertion, then, that Israel is defined by hate speech? As opposed to, say, Hamas?

You seem to have PM’s disabled, I think.
If you’d like a bit of the straight dope on this tangent, please either enable PM’s or confirm that you don’t mind receiving emails.

Cheers.

[BrainGlutton]

For the moment, Israel ain’t havin’ none of it.

[FinnAgain]

Interesting that democracy now didn’t add in any context to the story and state that, despite Carter’s spokesman efforts for Hamas, Hamas’ own spokesfolks made it quite clear that he was blowing smoke. DN also somehow failed to mention, in context, what Hamas’ offer of a “truce” really means.

For those who’re reading along but starting on the last page, this describes what Hamas means when they talk “truce”. And here’s a look at whether Carter’s claims about what Hamas would do, match Hamas’ claims about what Hamas would do.

[greatshakes]

@DSeid

A factual question of doubtful relevance but sure, I’ll play.

If I recall correctly the United States during the Carter years gave a bit more to Israel than it had in years previously (The Camp David Accords included a provision for the United States to help finance the withdrawal of Israeli troop from the Sinai) … all told maybe five billion plus … and a bit less than Israel got under Reagan. (To place it in perspective - a major part of contemporaneous American foreign aid but less than half of what we spend on Iraq in a month.)

You are certainly entitled to believe that Israel should honor Carter because Camp David was brokered during his tenure and resulted in Israel getting more financial aid in absolute terms than in previous years, albeit less than the next administration provided. Or merely because he once was an official representative of Israel’s strongest ally. Israel however is under no such obligation to view history through the same lens, nor to ignore how it views the private citizen Carter’s recent actions in relation to Israel’s policy objectives.

It is only fair to point out that the Carter Administration gave NO money to Israel during his presidency. Administrations do not do that. The United States Congress did it.

[tomndebb]

@spoke-

May I assume that questioning other posters’ motivations will be verboten to all from this point forward?

If so, you’re going to be a busy man.

I am already a busy man. I would guess that fully a third of my Moderator interventions have to do with telling posters to focus on the points of discussion rather than hijacking the thread with bickering feuds over personality conflicts. (Of course, it is not as bad as all that, since I rarely have to tell a poster to quit ignoring the entire point of the thread while he or she attempts to assassinate the character of another poster.)

[Spoke]

I will not obey a “Don’t question other posters’ motives” rule which is created by your fiat and applied only to me.

Do as you will.

[FinnAgain]

I’ve been reading up on this for years, and as the old saw goes, I’ve forgotten more about this topic than some folks have learned.
Something I tracked down again yesterday, as discussions with Shodan, and reading Malthus’ arguments prompted me to chew on the situation a bit more:

Digging up more info, it may very well be that Carter simply doesn’t care a jot for the truth, and is happy just inventing it without care or consideration of facts.

Jimmy Carter admitted yesterday that he did not consult Dennis Ross’ book, The Missing Peace, before writing his own volume on the Arab-Israel conflict.
[…]
As chief Middle East peace negotiator under Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Ambassador Ross knows perhaps more than anyone else the details of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks at the end of 2000—a topic discussed by Carter in recent interviews and his new book. The Missing Peace is described by Bill Clinton as “the definitive” account of those complicated negotiations, and has garnered praise from four past US secretaries of state.

In other words, Ross’ book is required reading for anyone who wants to understand—let alone write a credible book about—the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations of late 2000.
[…]
On the Dec. 8 episode of CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, Ross directly refuted Carter’s claims:

BLITZER: Who is right, Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton on this question which is so relevant as to whether or not the Israelis at Camp David at the end of the Bill Clinton administration accepted the proposals the U.S. put forward?

ROSS: The answer is President Clinton. The Israelis said yes to this twice, first at Camp David, there were a set of proposals that were put on the table that they accepted. And then were the Clinton parameters, the Clinton ideas which were presented in December, their government, meaning the cabinet actually voted it. You can go back and check it, December 27th the year 2000, the cabinet voted to approve the Clinton proposal, the Clinton ideas. So this is -- this is a matter of record. This is not a matter of interpretation.

BLITZER: So you're saying Jimmy Carter is flat wrong.

ROSS: On this issue, he's wrong. 

Not only did Carter ignore the authoritative source on what transpired at the Camp David negotiations, he apparently also didn’t bother to consult news reports from the era. On Dec. 28, 2000, the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Chicago Tribune and others all reported on the Israeli cabinet’s acceptance of Clinton’s parameters as a basis for discussion.

And:

Former President Jimmy Carter sticks to his recent public falsification of Arab-Israeli diplomatic history and international law, even when confronted with the facts.
[…]
Bilek shared with us the content of his letter in which he challenged Carter on several erroneous statements. He wrote:

Most egregiously you wrongly state that U.N. [Security Council] Resolution 242 (1967) has ‘mandated Israel’s withdrawal from the [emphasis added] occupied territories. You are more aware than most, that that article, “the,” is expressly omitted in the definitive, official, legal English version of that resolution, specifically to permit final border changes in a peace agreement. 

This is true. The resolution’s co-drafter, former U.S. Undersecretary of State Eugene Rostow, explained in a 1991 article in the New Republic:

Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from "all" the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the "fragile" and "vulnerable" Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called "secure and recognized" boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.

[…]
Among other Carter falsehoods noted by Bilek in the Guardian commentary were the assertions that all U.S. administrations have agreed that Israel’s permanent borders must “coincide with those established in 1949.”

Not only does the Bush administration not hold that view, as Bilek reminded Carter, but both Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan are on record that Israel could not be expected to return to the extremely vulnerable ‘49 lines, no more than nine miles wide at one of Israel’s most populous points.

Presented with undisputable facts — or at least facts that cannot in good faith be disputed — Carter returned Bilek’s letter with this handwritten note, which highlights the ex-president’s rigid insistence on rewriting history :

To Dr. Bilek: All international laws, resolutions & U.S. policies call for Israel’s withdrawal and the non-acquisition of territory by force. It’s obvious that you disagree — Best Wishes, Jimmy C.

Carter has since recycled his Guardian/Ha’aretz piece in USA Today, May 16, as “Israel’s new plan: A land grab.” (See "CAMERA ALERT: Jimmy Carter Blunders in USA Today”.)

Bilek concluded his letter to Carter by noting that “it is unclear why a former president, with such accolades to his reputation, has now come out practically as a shill for the recognized terrorists of Hamas, in the process attempting to skew history to suit a particular point of view.”

And:

He does what no non-fiction author should ever do: He allows ideology or opinion to get in the way of facts. While Carter says that he wrote the book to educate and provoke debate, the narrative aims its attack toward Israel, Israeli politicians, and Israel’s supporters. It contains egregious errors of both commission and omission. To suit his desired ends, he manipulates information, redefines facts, and exaggerates conclusions. Falsehoods, when repeated and backed by the prestige of Carter’s credentials, can comprise an erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and policymaking. Rather than bring peace, they can further fuel hostilities, encourage retrenchment, and hamper peacemaking.
[…]
This reinterpretation is invention on Carter’s part. He first adopted this revision of UNSCR 242 in his December 10, 2002 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech when he referred to “withdrawal from the occupied territories.” Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations on March 2, 2006, he used a similar phrase and added the false claim that Begin had agreed to Carter’s reinterpretation of UNSCR 242 at Camp David in 1978.[39] In effect, Carter is changing the “Land for Peace” formula into “Land for Negotiations.” The idea that negotiations should only occur subsequent to Israeli withdrawal was the position held by the PLO at the height of its terrorist campaign in the 1970s.
[…]
To support Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid’s central theme that Israel is intransigent, Carter recasts Hamas as a moderate partner ready to negotiate with Israel. He launders its reputation both with careful word choice and omission. He uses the past tense, for example, to describe Hamas as an “Islamic militant group that opposed recognition of Israel [and] perpetrated acts of violence.” Carter adds that he “urged them …to forgo violence.”[41] He omits mention that Hamas denies the right of a Jewish state to exist in the Middle East and the group’s belief that historical Palestine belongs in its entirety to Muslims. Carter is incorrect when he writes that Hamas has not been responsible for any terrorist acts since August 2004.[42] Hamas on many subsequent occasions claimed responsibility for firing Qassam rockets into Israel and also claimed responsibility for the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit in June 2006.[43]

Carter also claims that Hamas supports a 2002 Arab summit resolution which advocates a two-state solution, albeit one dependent on the right of return of Palestinian refugees. But Hamas rejects the two-state solution. Carter states that Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, “supports peace talks between Israel and [Palestinian Authority leader] Abbas … [and] accepts the Road Map in its entirety.” He does not. Carter adds that Hamas would modify its rejection of Israel if there were a negotiated agreement that the Palestinian people can approve, “an important facet of the Camp David Accords,”[44] but the Camp David accords never specified universal Palestinian ratification.

Carter has defended Hamas against charges of intransigence during his Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid book tour. While visiting Tehran on December 8, 2006, Haniyeh said, “We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihadist movement until Bayt al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] and the Al-Aqsa Mosque are liberated.”[45] When asked by a Denver radio host on station KHOW 630 AM six days later about Haniyeh’s statement, Carter answered, “No, he didn’t. No, he did not do that. I did not hear that.”
[…]
After reading Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, I was troubled by a passage recounting a meeting Carter and I had attended with Assad at his presidential office in March 1990. I revisited my notes and saw discrepancies between them and the story Carter recounts. When discussing the Syrian dispute with Israel, Assad, as always, chose his words carefully. The notes (see Figure 1) show the following passage:

JC: Your severest critics know you keep your word—would you accept demilitarization of [the] Golan Heights?

A: Today, Peres [Israel's foreign minister] said Syria would accept [a] demilitarized Golan. But we cannot accept this because we are sacrificing our sovereignty.

A: In the past we have said that things must be done mutually on both sides of the Golan—international forces, semi-demilitarization—on equal footing. If anyone can ask for additional measures, we should ask for a larger DMZ [demilitarized zone] from their part.

But, in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter wrote:

When I visited Damascus in 1990, President Assad informed me that he was willing to negotiate with Israel on the status of the Golan Heights. His proposal was that both sides withdraw from the international border, with a small force of foreign observers and electronic devices to monitor the neutral zone. When I asked him if each nation would have to fall back an equal distance, he replied that Syria might move its troops farther from the border because of the terrain. He also gave me permission to report his proposal to Washington and to the Israelis, which I did in Jerusalem three days later.[47]

Carter reworded the conversation to suggest that Assad was flexible and the Israelis were not. Assad did not say he would accept a demilitarized zone; to do so would be to sacrifice his sovereignty. Nor did he say he would withdraw deeper from his side of the border. This was not a slip of memory for Carter; Carter received a full set of my notes of the March 1990 trip after its conclusion. These were intentional distortions.
[48]

I’m not quite sure how much deeper the rabbit hole goes. Shodan may be right, and Carter made up his mind who the “bad guys” are, and filters all information through that lens. Then again, he may also know the truth and deliberately distort it. Or, as he has claimed at least once, he is totally unconcerned with the facts. The situation is, as far as I’m aware (although I could certainly be wrong) Carter has never acknowledged, let alone retracted and corrected any of his fabrications. Without him even being willing to admit that he has gotten anything wrong, or explaining how and why he made such egregious mistakes, it’s hard to know what the agenda is behind his campaign of lies.

In any case, a private citizen who has such a record of distortion and fabrication, and an obviously strong partisan bias, is definitely not a good choice to be the mediator in one of the longest and most complex conflicts in our modern world. I’d hope that the reasons for that conclusion are abundantly clear.
I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why his supporters not only think that he’s the man for the job, but that it isn’t reasonable that some folks rely on his history of decpetion and partisanship in order to justify asking him to sit this out.

[FinnAgain]

Sorry for the double post, I didn’t realize spoke was still in this thread, and I might as well take advantage of that fact to get some real debate out of a Carter supporter.

@FinnAgain

I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why his supporters not only think that he’s the man for the job, but that it isn’t reasonable that some folks rely on his history of decpetion and partisanship in order to justify asking him to sit this out.

Along those lines, since you’re still posting here spoke, why don’t you answer those questions (and back them up with facts, preferably with cites). I’ll lay it out via bullet points, in case that helps.

-Why is a man who, objectively, is a strong partisan for one side and as it could certainly be persuasively argued, against another, a good mediator in a tremendously complex issue with grudges that go back more than a century?
-Why is someone given to habitual and, quite likely, agenda-driven deception a good choice to mediate in negotiation which will require ruthless honesty and for both sides to make some very hard choices?
-How does Carter’s habit of lying in order to demonize one side and cast the other side as virtually blameless, help that other side come to terms with its own misdeeds and stop them?
-How have Carter’s habitual lying and partisan distortions helped the peace process? How does emboldening Hamas and making them think that their rejectionist strategy is working, make it more likely that Hamas will give up that strategy?
-If Carter is willing to lie, distort and fabricate in order to twist former treaties and UN resolutions, what is to say that any treaty that he helped engineer would be equitable, properly enforceable or that he wouldn’t twist the results/goals of that treaty once it was signed?
-Is there any reason, at all, to think that if Hamas were placed within rocket range of Tel Aviv, and Israel wasn’t able to prevent Iran from importing rockets to Hamas, as well as Israel dismantling all of its security fence… that Hamas wouldn’t simply fire rockets at Tel Aviv and send suicide bombers to wherever they could hit?
-What reason is there to think that any peace treaty that was signed, with Hamas (and Islamic Jihad, etc…) being what they are, would be anything more than a “peace treaty” in name only?

If you could please present facts and logic to support your position that would be good. Simply repeating that Carter is beyond reproach for his goals, methods or ideology doesn’t refute the facts that show a clear and obvious set of reasons to reproach him for his goals, methods and ideology.

[Spoke]

Thanks just the same, Finn, but life is too short to respond to your loaded questions and to battle you over minutae.

Instead, I’ll state the obvious: You can’t make peace with your enemies without talking to them.

I haven’t seen any convincing alternative “agenda” for Carter. Therefore, I believe his agenda is as he says it is: peace.

I do not say that his tactics in pursuit of that goal will be effective. I do not say that he is an evenhanded broker. (He certainly does seem to believe the Palestinians have legitimate grievances which Israel does not acknowledge). Carter may be dangerously naïve. Time may tell.

I came into this thread only to challenge the suggestion that Carter had some sinister and hidden motive. That was and remains a vile suggestion.