Carter seems to me to be motivated by some religious, millenial concerns when it comes to Israel - note his comments to Golda. Which isn’t surprising as he is devoutly religious.
I think he is dissapointed with Israel in its present form, as it does not embody his millenial asperations. Thus it can do no good and must be opposed and criticized at every opportunity.
This is I think not “anti semitism” because it really has nothing to do with hatred of Jews - and indeed many Orthodox Jews share this view (that Zionism is basically bad for religious/millenial reasons). But it does call into question his capacity to be objective.
That’s something we could debate (not that I have the expertise, and it would be a hijack anyhow). Nobody in the Middle East represents a real military threat to Israel; Israel would eat their lunch if anyone tried anything overt. The existential threat to Israel is demographic, and they perpetuate it by not cutting loose of the occupied territories. If the Jewish state is destroyed, it will be their own doing.
I would generally agree with you. Some may make a plausible argument that negotiating has value nonetheless - I myself don’t buy it, but the argument could be made.
I merely contrast this plausibility with the non-plausibility that negotiating a deal with Syria requires Hamas.
Okay then, enlighten me. You have read the quote - seems to me to be in character with my thesis. If you know better from your personal knowledge of the man, why is a religious or millenial concern with Israel “ludicrous”?
Don’t bother. When FinnAgain gets into any Israel- or MENA-related thread, the cause of fighting ignorance and reasoned debate can only be served by ignoring his posts.
You know, like when brazil84 appears in any climate-change thread.
You forgot to add “controversial” to that last phrase.
As a side note of trivia: Stanford students affectionately call the building: Hoover’s Last Erection. It stands out quite a bit on the suburban (once rural) campus of mostly low-slung buildings.
I have edited my remark. He obviously does have religious concerns. To characterize those cocerns as “millenial” is the ridiculous part. Do you know what the word means? Are you seriously suggesting that Carter is motivated by a belief that he can bring about the return of Christ?
Oh gimmee a break. No one accused any one of antisemitism here. Only someone “misspeaking” that people are being accused of it and you reading into statements things that were not said nor are part of any “code” I’ve ever heard of.
See, this is my problem here. I don’t see that plausible argument. You’ve said that reasonable people could disagree, and that there is a plausible argument for their position… but what is it? All of the evidence points to Hamas wanting nothing, at all, to do with peace. All of the evidence.
Now… sure, we could say that “well, a miracle will occur and Hamas will reform” type arguments are possible, but plausible? That’s what I’m asking for here. What piece of evidence, of fact, elevates the ‘a miracle occurs’ argument from a mere pipe dream?
I mean, hell… I remember when I was a kid in school doing proofs in math class; from time to time, I knew what the answers were, but couldn’t figure out the steps to get there, for the life of me. I’d almost always simply write out the beginning and end of the proof, with “then a miracle happens” somewhere in the middle. To my mind, the arguments that Hamas will suddenly accept peace have the “then a miracle happens” line in their proof.
As I said, I’m willing to accept that this is a plausible rather than simply a (remotely) possible scenario, but as of yet, I’ve seen no real evidence. And I’m not going to dress up blind faith as reasoned disagreement if nobody can actually point out the reasons behind it. I think that’s fair, no?
Nope, you’re not mistaken. This is, IIRC, Play Number 207 in the Israel-Basher’s handbook.
If someone like Carter is outed as being a habitual liar, whose lies serve an agenda, and who wants to prop up genocidal rejectionists? Then whoever pointed out those facts also must be a wacko who’ll call anybody an anti-Semite who disagrees with him. It avoids having to discuss the actual meat of the topic (notice, nobody, at all, has yet even addressed Carter’s habit of lying constantly about Israel). It , often, easily switches the debate from whatever its subject was to Israel-Bashers complaining about how very persecuted they are.
You should know better, John. Really, you should.
The US “seemingly supports” Israel no matter what?
Where is the official US embassy located in Israel? Jerusalem, or Tel Aviv?
Has the US signed off on at least one UN resolution calling settlements illegal?
Etc…
Yes, the US has a close bond with Israel. Yes, it has supported a great deal of what Israel has done. But come on, no matter what?
That’s okay, I’m sure you think a lot of things.
Be sure to keep your Decoder Ring out to spot all the other Code that I use.
Mwahahah!
Sure, and as long as you retract all of your mistakes, bit of ignorance, willful distortions of the facts and times when you simply imagined things, I’ll believe that you’re here for, you know, a debate.
Why you seem to think that showing how someone’s position is bullshit is somehow out of bounds for a debate, I have no idea. A debate includes refutation and a scrupulous adherence to proof, facts, verification and epistemology.
This aint a tea party.
And yet, a report that you just relied on to make your case says, clearly, that large elements in both MI and Mossad didn’t “know what was going on.” Again, you have made a massive mistake that is directly contradicted by something you, yourself, cited. It also can’t be out of ignorance, as not only did you cite it, I quoted it to you. You know, for a fact, that not only is it “plausible”, but that the Commission found that exactly that was the case.
Actually, you’ve invented that fiction, too. I quoted the Commission’s report, which happened to be housed on the JVL. I did not, at any point, quote the JVL.
As for what Fisk claims, it’s interesting that the very document you offered as some sort of definitive cite… makes no mention of such a claim. Surely something that was public knowledge and not, ya know, made up would’ve wound up in the Commission’s findings. And speaking of bullshit, Fisk is a fucking 9/11 Truther Interesting, of course, how you quickly ditched what you were claiming was a cite that supported your position, neglected to retract any of your mistakes… and now cite a 9/11 truther as an authority. Of course, aside from the fact that the man is a raving loon, there’s his tendency to make shit up wrt Israel.
As you apparently have no desire to play straight, and your posting has now devolved into standard Pit level posting, I’m done playing your game. I’ve fought your ignorance and anybody reading along can make up their own minds whether you’re talking facts or bullshit.
What bullshit is this?
An habitual liar, with a political agenda, who attempts to give power to genocidal rejectionists is working for peace? What Orwellian twisting of language are you using whereby Carter’s lies, designed to strip Israel of its ability to defend itself, are actually in the service of “peace”?
You do know that, just like character assassination has its own definition, you can’t substitute “the peace of the grave” for “peace”.
Sorry, no. This kind of bullshit may fly over beers in a pub, but it shouldn’t in GD. It never fails to amaze me that a certain faction will, almost without fail, look at someone’s PR and take that at face value, as long as the PR is for the “right” side. To claim that any supporter of Hamas wants peace, as long as they’re not too damn ignorant to participate in an informed debate, is laughable. It’s like saying that someone can want the KKK to become a major part of American politics, but they want racial harmony. Some people are Useful Idiots who support yet another genocidal, Jew-hating regime, and are honestly baffled at why supporting a group bent on genocide might put paid to claims that they want peace.
But hey, looking at someone in context, his habits, goals, lies and reasons for lying is beyond the pale in your view.
Spinning a debate with politically motivated, counterfactual bullshit is beyond the pale, in mine.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Holy shit, we actually got to the second page before the Israel-Bashing-Brigade actually brought up that canard. I’m impressed.
Of course, you totally made that up and I challenge you to find a single person, anywhere, who has actually said that any and all criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitic”.
I know exactly what “millenialism” means, thank you.
Fact is, evangelicals (such as Carter) are split into at least two camps on the role of Israel in the “end times”. Many, as is well known, support Israel and Zionism, because they see it as part of the millenial plan. Others are more like Orthodox Jews - they oppose Israel.
Carter is in the latter camp.
Obviously Carter is not motivated by a belief that he, personally, can bring about about the Millenium, any more than Orthodox Jews who oppose zionism believe that they can bring on the messiah.
As noted, I haven’t yet read his book – what reason do you have to think Carter’s position on Israel-Palestine has anything to do with any eschatalogical aspect of his religious beliefs?
Well, for one, his quoted statements to that effect:
Combine this with his book (which makes no particular bones about his mission) and his lifelong devotion to Christian Evangelism, the thesis is inescapable.
For me it was Organic Chem in college but the trick was to evoke an enzyme to do it.
I’d make the plausible argument that Hamas gets talked with precisely because they are the enemy. No miracles will happen here but “understandings” can occur.
Meanwhile I’m counting down to Tom pulling out his whistle …
I’m not willfully distorting anything here, and for you to continue to keep accusing me of intentional dishonesty poisons the well and precludes honest debate. So knock it the fuck off, or fuck off out of this thread.
Now you are equivocating. Even if intelligence and Mossad didn’t predict the massacre, what I was saying in the passage you quoted is that while the massacre was going on, the IDF knew it was going on. Quit distorting what I’m saying.
Again, misrepresenting what I am saying. I didn’t cite the Kahan report as a definitive source, as you claim. Nowhere did I make that claim. You know, it’s possible that there’s more than one source of information out there.
Please. I’d love to see you leave this thread. In case you hadn’t noticed, everyone here is engaging in more or less calm debate. You are frothing at the mouth, accusing people of lying, and in general being a pain in the ass. You contribute little except to ratchet up the level of anger. I was posting in a perfectly calm manner until you came in here like a maniac flinging accusations like a chimp flinging its own shit. Christ, dude, you really need to dial it back several notches, if for no other reason than that people might actually take you seriously if you did so.
For me it was Organic Chem in college but the trick was to evoke an enzyme to do it.