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

Well, it’s fine to see someone honestly ask the question.
It’s standard SDMB boilerplate partisanship to see the glib bullshit fly so quickly after an honest question. Ah well.

As, I’d hope, might be obvious, Israel has, long ago, said that the Palestinians may have a “genuine grievance” (here I thought it was more than 40 years of negotiation that showed that Israel accepted that fact. Jayjay obviously has inside info). Likewise, the idea that settling land whose ownership is, at best, disputed and at ‘worst’ shown to be state-land, as codified under Ottoman law is “colonialist” is just a bit of newspeak designed to obfuscate. Nor, it’s worth noting, was Carter’s smear limited to or predicated on Israel recognizing that the PA had a negotiating position or that they should stop building settlements. I’m not sure if spoke actually knows what the book was about other than ‘Israel bad’, but apparantly it meets with his approval.

~sigh~
No… see, the problem with Carter isn’t that Israel is just a big bad meany (or overfull of Ultra Chuztpah). The problem (and, funny, Carter’s supporters here haven’t mentioned his pattern of habitually lying in order to advance his partisan politics). The problem with Carter, in a nutshell, is that he’s a vile liar. I mean, when he starts lying, he evidently finds it hard to stop.

Now, most folks who’ll enter threads like this on the SDMB probably don’t care about all that. You’re lucky if some of 'em can remember if Iran is a brutal and repressive theocracy or a thriving civil society. In short, with one single book, Carter uttered dozens of lies, half-truths and/or “mistakes”. His agenda is one that has, as its goal, the stripping of any significant or substantial Israeli ability to interdict or strike at its enemies.

More to the point, and in a broader context as I pointed out above, visiting Hamas and then wanting to talk to Jews/Israelis is a bit like hanging out with the Grand Wizard of the KKK and then wanting to chill with the cast of Roots. People who aren’t wilfully ignorant understand that point, that being friendly with violent racists probably doesn’t seem warm and fluffy to the perennial targets of those racists. But hey, again, you asked your question on the Dope, a place where “I just support Hamas, an organization explicitly racist and dedicated to genocide against the Jews… how could anybody think I’m an anti-semite?”

Ahem.

So put just the recent history together: Carter is a liar, with an agenda, that is hostile to and dangerous for a specific nation. He also often props up via rhetoric and actually went to meet with, on friendly terms, a group of genocidal racists who are, also, hostile to and dangerous for a specific nation.

Put all that together, and any specific nation would be well within its rights to prohibit the scumfuck from even entering their sovereign territory, period. That Israel is just refusing to provide resources for his security detail is, frankly and in proportion, peanuts.

And as Moto points out, Carter is certainly not a newbie to being a total asshole (or fervently-ideological-anti-Israel-leftist, take your pick) where Israel is concerned. Remember, this is the same guy who while visiting Golda Meir, took time and specifically belittled Israel’s secular society and essentially predicted ruin if she didn’t follow a more ‘biblical’ route of government.

Carter’s smug superiority is interesting, in that it betrays his pattern of cluelessness and his great ability to be a total asshole at a moment’s notice: here he was, a Christian, telling a Jew whose family was terrorized by pogroms, who was the leader of a nation of Jews which had, just over two decades previously been established as a safe haven for all the Jews of the world… that her religious devotion was lacking and that Carter could predict that ruin would come if she didn’t be a Jew in the right way, the way her arrogant asshole Christian guest was telling her to be.

Or in his own words:

If you want more info Marc, I’d be happy to dredge some up. Reading over just a bit of the information I’ve given you should at least convince you that Israel has some very real reasons that it might consider to be legitimate reasons to classify Carter ‘persona non grata’. Which I think was your question. Yes?

Probably 99% of Israelis would agree with that statement.

Did you even bother to read the few posts in this thread so far? He went quite a bit further than that.

He would say as I do: You can have neither without the other.

…Israel bad … Palestine good.
Statistics are not required.

Carter brave truth teller… Israel bad.
Posts are not required.

Knowing about an issue is totally overrated.
This is GD. I have it on good authority that they totally just misspelled IMHO2.

That made me laugh out loud.

Carter has no business “brokering” peace between Hamas and Israel if Israel doesn’t want his sorry ass involved. They should put a collar on his neck and connect it to a dog-run along the Gaza Strip. Maybe He can do a Sesame Street episode where he counts the missiles shot at him.

And Jimmy is pissing people off again .

Yasser Arafat… I could have sworn that he was the guy who headed the PLO & Black September, and founded Fatah. Oh wait, he was. Arafat was a murderer, plain and simple. If later in life, he discovered that you can catch more flies with honey, then great- whatever let him fool the world into thinking that he had changed his stripes. But some people were not fooled.

:frowning:

You see you can disagree with whether or not Israel’s perspective is accurate (I myself think that to you need to talk to your enemies even more than you need to talk to your friends) but Israel is under no obligation to view Carter’s role in history as BG and others do. They are under some onus to behave consistently today however. Carter is busy presenting a POV in which Israel is the oppressor enforcing an apartheid state, honoring those that are perceived by Israel as murderers, and elevating the status of those that Israel would prefer to see diminished.

You may feel that their perception is incorrect or not, but to behave as if that wasn’t their POV would be odd indeed. McCain was there as a representative of the United States; he was due honors and protections. Carter is a private citizen representing only himself; he is due nothing.

Yeah. As much as I’m for opening at least backchannel relations between the various Palestinian groups and Israel (since neither can back down from their public statements about the other easily without losing the ability to represent their respective populations, but nonetheless dialogue is the fastest route to changing attitudes), Carter ain’t the guy to open those relations. He’s too controversial, too overtly friendly to the Palestinian attitudes, and too much of a dick.

Not to say that either side is perfect, but it would have been nice if the Palestinians had collectively decided to take Israel up on the offer when it was trying to make nice decades ago–can’t blame Israel for being vicious in return for viciousness now, even if we hope they could do better.

How much aid did the Carter presidency give Israel?

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.

Something else must be pointed out here.

There are assertions here that Israel is under some obligation here to treat Carter a certain way simply because he is a former president or because he performed some useful service or two to Israel in the past. Never mind his current attitudes or actions - he should be given a sort of deference.

This hasn’t been the case in the past for any country, though, so I wonder why this should hold true now. Furthermore, some incidents like this involved nations that had and maintained reasonably good relations throughout the incidents involved.

I am reminded of Kurt Waldheim, who throughout his term as Austrian president was persona non grata in the United States and Western Europe. That didn’t keep Austria from closing down its embassies in the United States or elsewhere.

It is even unlikely that Israel’s actions will create a public relations hit in the United States - most Democrats recognize that Carter is 'round the bend on this issue, and while the party won’t denounce him for obvious reasons various Democratic politicians do emphasize their distance from Carter’s actions in this area. The message there is pretty clear.

Carter’s statement today:

Well, this proves that he has no clue. No matter what your opinion on Israel and the ME situation is, one thing everyone can agree on - what Syria does is in no way dependant on the goodwill of Hamas!

This is simply absurd:

If Syria thought it was in Syrian best interests to sell Hamas down the river, it would without a second thought. It is not only possible, but quite eminently possible, to cut a deal with Syria “without involving Hamas”.

I think he meant only that Hamas must be involved in any peace deal generally, not that their involvement is necessary to come to terms with Syria.

However, that isn’t what he actually said.

To my mind, he’s not only playing the fool, but being extremely harmful with it - what good can come of telling a West Bank audience that Hamas is necessary for a deal witg Syria? It is playing up the importance of Hamas (which doesn’t exist IMO re Syria) to that half of the Palestinian nation not currently ruled by Hamas.

It is as if the guy actively wants to promote Hamas. Incredible.

Look, you know at this point Hamas ain’t going away and can’t be marginalized. Saying it must be involved in any serious negotiations is simply realistic.

It isn’t “being realistic” to make inflated - and wholly incorrect - claims about Hamas’ importance, such as that Syrian cooperation requires Hamas participation.

To my mind, attempting to “involve Hamas in serious negotiations” is unrealistic at this point because Hamas has no interest in “negotiations”. But that is a point on which reasonable people could disagree.

What is beyond dispute is that the notion that Syrian cooperation requires Hamas is simply wrong (and IMO foolish and harmful at best to proclaim).

That doesn’t seem to be what he said:

“don’t think it’s possible without Hamas” seems to be refering to Syria being a non-enemy.

If “don’t think it’s possible without Hamas” was refering to resolving the Golan heights issue, than “involving Hamas” should have directly followed that sentence… instead of appearing a bit further on in the dialog.

**BG ** - Are you saying that throughout human history, no radical political movement has ever lost power, lost significance, been eradicated or simply vanished?

That’s nice. Maybe the U.S. Ambassador to France should open talks with the Jacobins*. After that, the State Department should reassess its policy as regards the Kmer Rouge, the Menshiviks, the Hussites and the Sikarikim.

  • Or was that the Jacobites? No matter - we should talk to them too!

No, I am saying we have no reason to expect Hamas will in the near future.