Hamas signs a pledge abandoning terrorism, and agrees to end hostilities-what then?
No matter what the circumstances that Hamas agrees to renounce terror (and follows through with it) they earn the right to be part of the negotiating process in a fully recognized way.
Now how about what if a what Warren Buffet gives me all his money hypothetical?
In the grand picture, I would characterize all of the factual disputes as “niggling nitpicking.” More aptly I think, they represent an attempt to distract the dispassionate reader from the “forest” by focusing on individual “trees.” That is why I really don’t want to sink into debating fine details, or minor factual slips Carter may have made along the way (pulled out-of-context from volumes of transcripts of Carter’s many public appearances and interviews on the subject).
I am going to humor you by getting into some factual detail on this one issue, to illustrate what I mean when I talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
First, here’s the forest:
[ul][li]The Israelis are building a “security wall” ostensibly to separate themselves from the Palestinians living in the West Bank.[]The wall, in several places, intrudes into the interior of the West Bank, so as to encompass Israeli settlements that have been established in Palestinian territory.[]The parts of the wall bulging out to encompass these controversial Israeli settlements are also encompassing Palestinians living withing the “bulges,” thus cutting them off from their friends and relatives on the other side of the wall in the West Bank. From the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: [/li][quote]
If the Barrier is completed based on the current route, 60,500 West Bank Palestinians living in 42 villages and towns will reside in areas between the Barrier and the Green Line or in closed areas. In the constructed parts of the Barrier, people living in these areas must obtain a permit to pass through a gate in order to access health and education services, jobs, and markets in the West Bank.
[/quote]
[li]The wall is, thus, separating Palestinians from Palestinians.[]Moreover, the wall is effectively putting the imprimatur of the state of Israel on the ahem controversial Israeli settlements within the West Bank, and making it appear as though Israel intends to keep the territory occupied by these settlements permanently. In other words, it looks like a permanent annexation of Palestinian territory.[]Not surprisingly, Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory stir outrage among the Palestinians, and are an obstacle to peace, particularly when reinforced by the wall being built out into the West Bank to enclose and protect those settlements.[*]Carter has pointed out, rightly, that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and more particularly the implied endorsement of those settlements by the Israeli government (via the wall) are an obstacle to peace.[/ul][/li]
Now, with your cite, you want to get into a fight about whether Carter (in a short quote pulled from an interview on CNN) accurately described the location and function of the wall. Here’s what Carter said:
Carter is quite correct that the wall separates Palestinians from other Palestinians. He is also correct in that the wall does not (strictly speaking) separate Israel from Palestine (since it intrudes in several places into Palestine). I encourage readers to look closely at the maps at the UN site (pdf) (scroll to pages 5 and 6).
In a separate interview (also pulled out of context), Carter says:
According to the UN site, only 20% of the barrier’s length runs “along” the Green Line separating Israel from the West Bank. And even that 20% running “along” the line does not necessarily conflict with what Carter is saying if (as I understand to be the case) the wall, even where it runs “along” the Green Line, is built on the Palestinian side of the Green Line. Again I encourage readers to look closely at the maps at the UN site (pdf) (scroll to pages 5 and 6).
You and your source want to nitpick Carter’s remarks, while missing his larger point that the wall would be a de facto annexation of large parts of Palestinian territory in the West Bank. That is the forest. You and your source (and Finn) want to focus on trees. (And I will not further aid or participate in that sort of distraction. This is what I mean when I say I don’t want to get into minutiae.)
Is the real intent of the wall annexation of territory? It’s at least an arguable point. Israel and its supporters would have a better case to the contrary if the wall adhered strictly to the Green Line and put Israeli settlers in the West Bank to the hard choice of which side of the wall they’d rather live on.
Does any of this mean terrorism is justified? No. But it does mean that Israelis are creating roadblacks to peace which should be seen and openly discussed as such, without accusations of bigotry.
Has Carter justified terrorism? No, and hell no. He and the Carter Center have condemned terrorism at every turn.
I do not pretend expertise in Middle Eastern affairs. Maybe I’ve gotten some things wrong. (If so, I’m sure we’ll see a nitpicking frenzy.)
Again, I entered this thread only to combat what I see as a smear of Carter’s character (with which I have more familiarity).
**spoke- *, if you can agree with Carter that the wall does not separate Palestinains from Israelis, when well over 80% of the wall follows the Green Line, then I am not sure that there can be any discussion, because I cannot see any way that your remarks reflect reality.
Other than that, do you actually have evidence of Carter actually saying or doing anything that would favor Israel over the Palestinians (or even over Hamas)? Or are we simply going to have to assume that you will dismiss every remark Carter makes against Israel as “nitpicking” while we accept some grand thought of his impartiality based on exactly zero evidence?
- (I think that Israel has screwed up on a number of issues regarding the wall and the Israeli claims that they have not harmed the Palestinians when they have clearly divided Palestinian communities and even individual farms is nonsense. However, Carter’s claim is way too far in the other direction–to the point of being a malicious falsehood.)
Again you are focusing on trees (i.e. whether Carter’s characterization of the wall in a particular interview is correct), while reducing the forest to a footnote in your post. And a parenthetical one, at that.
So, you, in fact, have no evidence that Carter has ever provided an impartial or unbiased view of the problems in the Levant?
Carter’s “characterization of the wall in a particular interview” is an outright lie. It demonizes the Israelis while making two specific claims that are clearly false. Where is his statement in some other interview or essay where he acknowledges that the Israelis were prompted to put up the wall due to constant attacks on civilians? Where is his acknowledgement in some other place that he misspoke and that the wall does, in fact, separate the Israelis from the Palestinians? Where is his retraction of his claim that “This wall is not built between Israel and Palestine. It’s built between the Palestinians and other Palestinians.”?
I’m willing to acknowldege that the Israelis and their defenders and apologists are very good at spinning information to portray themselves in the best possiblle light. However, if Carter is not capable of granting the Israelis even token consideration for their views and continues to issue false statements about the situation, why should I give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his actions?
I am not even interested in his motivation. He may, indeed, be just a senile guy acting on some emotional trigger who has failed to do sufficient research into a situation and still hopes that he can bring peace to the region through his visits and publications. I do not join in the chorus condemning the man. However, I see no reason to cut his actions any slack when they are so clearly biased and so frequently false.
Let’s go with that metaphor spoke … Carter believes in his heart of hearts that the forest has a particular shape. That shape in this particular case is one in which Israel is not concerned about its security at all but is instead intent only on annexing “massive” amounts Palestinian land and cutting apart Palestinian families. It doesn’t matter where the trees actually are, he has decided that such is the forest’s shape and all the trees that don’t fit that shape are just distractions, niggling nitpicks, easily remedied by imagining a bunch of other trees that would fit the shape of the forest that he is sure is there.
Now as Tom has already stated, there are valid objections to the course of the fence, but an honest broker would acknowledge that its route is primarily focused on protecting Israeli citizens (including those in controversial settlements) from harm. One can argue, as you do, that the settlers should be left to “a hard choice”, but that is not what Carter does. He just ignores their protection as an issue that exists. No it is all about annexation and separating Palestinians from each other. An honest broker wouldn’t need to ignore the facts as trees inconsequential to the shape that he is sure the forest must be.
The issue in this thread is not the barrier fence and whether or not it could strike a better balance between security concerns and its impact on Palestinians in the immediate areas, but if Carter is an honest broker. He is not.
No, Carter has not “justified” terrorism, but he has enabled it by ignoring and denying it and by embracing those who practice it with open arms as advocates of a national liberation movement. His bias is pervasive and the facts consistently are mere items to be bent to his conclusions as he believes that he is in possession of a greater truth.
“Niggling nitpicks” indeed.
Again strictly speaking, the wall is not “between” Israel and Palestine. It is in Palestinian territory. (Much of it extends deep into Palestinian territory.) Even the part that runs “along” the green line (in less populous areas, I note) is built on the Palestinian side of the line.
If you build a fence on your neighbor’s land, you haven’t built a fence between you and your neighbor, you’ve built a fence on your neighbor’s land.
Not to discount the Israeli’s security concerns (which I don’t) but to accuse Carter of “lying” based on this statement (and looking at a map) is silly.
DSeid, first of all let me say I appreciate your careful reasoning and calm discussion in this thread. But I disagree with you. Making that argument is exactly what Carter does (all the while acknowledging Israel’s legitimate security concerns). Here, for instance, Carter says:
The only way to paint Carter as a dishonest broker is to scour transcript after transcript for quotes that can be taken out of context and used against him.
(Has anyone here actually read his book, or are y’all relying entirely on media reports and blogs to determine Carter’s mindset?)
You can find much more on Carter’s views on Israel’s security and his thoughts on terrorism in the transcripts from his appearance at Brandeis (in which you will find not one hint of “senility”). (But nice ad hominem on Carter, there, Tom.)
And if you have built it one foot over the property line, where the neighbor has only grass, no trees or garden or playground equipment, it cannot legitimately be said that you have divided your neighbor’s family. You can be accused of stealing the property, but a claim that the fence is “between” the neighbor husband and the neighbor wife would be a lie. Carter did not simply claim that Israel made a land grab. He explicitly claimed that that the wall was NOT between Israelis and Palestinians and WAS between Palestinians (that would be people, not land) and Palestinians, (again, people, not land).
I disagree with the Israeli West bank settlements and I agree that the extension of the wall to include them divides Palestinians from their neighbors, families, and farms. Making the excessive claim that the wall does not separate Palestinians from Israelis (when it clearly does) and only separates Palestinians from Palestinians is not only dishonest, but stupid.
I did not launch an ad hominem against Carter, I put forth one possible scenario that is counter to Finn’s charges of utter malice. Since you have provided no evidence that Carter is either competent or fair, I am open to your speculation as to his behavior, but if it comes out as “elder stateman who is doing wonderful things,” I will be forced to laugh at it.
Clarification: I wouldn’t necessarily describe his agenda as one of malice, let alone utter malice. One’s actions can be vile without being malicious. In fact, I’ve repeatedly said that I’m not sure what his real motivations are, as he lies too often and retracts his lies too infrequently for me to pin him down.
I do think, however, that as I’ve said, he’s such a consummate partisan for one side, that his acts of uncritically shilling for them (or sub-groups like Hamas) end up harming the causes of a just peace (and an actual peace rather than a peace treaty in name only), a truthful analysis of the issues and the security of the Israelis.
It’s the difference between deliberately running children over in your SUV, and racing to get somewhere where you own family is in danger, and not knowing or caring (and maybe even lying about) that you’re running over other people’s families in your haste.
I think that the latter scenario is still vile, but it is not necessarily malicious.
On the facts that are now (finally) being engaged:
I suppose that it’s worth pointing out the “nitpick” that Carter has lied and made a specific point of defining the entire barrier as a “wall”, when it is actual wall in a very small percentage of its length. (calling it a wall sounds more ominous, of course). That some will see this particular distortion as worthy of no merit is already well established by this thread. That, likewise, they will not question why Carter would make such an obviously untruthful statement that so obviously is designed to evoke certain associations, is neither here nor there. It’s also worth noting that he’s used to speaking out of both sides of his mouth, and although he’s claimed that he’d be okay with the barrier if its course was along the green line, he’s also lied in order to demonize it as not being about Israeli security, at all. What evidence there is that he’d retract the lie if Israel just had the barrier cleave to the Green Line is any body’s guess. Me, I don’t put much credence in an argument that runs “sure, he’s obviously lying on this point, but he’ll stop lying if you just change things.”
(Personally, I doubt that Carter’s line would be changed to anything other than “See, now Israel is attempting to build a wall to separate the Palestinians from gainful employment in Israel, and for no security purpose at all. It’s apartheid.”)
I, for one, am not willing to take a proven liar at his word.
Others, evidently, are.
And that, of course, isn’t even getting into the fact that previously state-owned Ottoman land whose final status will only be resolved via negotiation, is now definitively being described as “Palestinian territory”. Screw negotiations and every agreement that the PA entered into with Israel that called for Final Status negotiations, it’s all Palestine’s.
Even the analogy of it being on someone else’s “yard” misses essential nuance and context.
Still, I’d wager that most folks who are interested in the facts of the matter can tell the difference between:
“The barrier is there to protect Israeli civilians against suicide bombers, but that goal does not justify it taking a more aggressive route that causes hardship to more Palestinians than absolutely necessary. Its route must be changed.”
and
“The barrier is there only to divide Palestinians from other Palestinians. It doesn’t offer any safety or security to Israel at all and is apartheid.”
I’d wager, too, that most folks who are interested in the facts of the matter can tell which of those quotes are more likely to come from an evenhanded broker who is interested in an equitable settlement, and one who serves as a spokesman and a partisan, the truth be damned. They can tell who is shading, or mangling, or inventing ‘facts’ in order to support a particular agenda, too. Most people, I’d bet, can tell that if someone makes noise about being willing to support a security barrier if its route is acceptable, and then utters the second of the two statements above, that they have, to be charitable, contradicted their own story, at least once.
P.S. As I-P debates are on the same level as Bush Bashes (eg. you can’t just point out the facts if they serve to defend Bush from any charges, you also have to offer criticism lest you be called a Republican 
), I will say that Israel should dismantle all settlments/outposts that don’t have a 100% function of ensuring Israeli security. I would also point out, however (Zionist apologist, Zionist apologist!) that such a strategy includes implicit risks that, as unilateral withdrawal has indeed been cast as a victory for terrorism and a sign that terrorism is working and needs to be stepped up, thus serving to actually increase violence. Unilateral disengagements have also led to territories, like Gaza, being turned into rocket launching sites which require various degrees of invasion/bombing to defend against. The formula, thus, acknowledges the drawbacks and pitfalls that such a plan could contain. Which makes it infinitely more palatable than Carter’s dishonest flights of fantasy.