The real issue is whether Israel’s policies are justified in the situation, not whether they measure up to some emotive word or other.
Alleging that a person has demonstrated a bias, and thus that their opinions are not objective, is not a fallacious use of the ad hom. Of course such an observation cannot prove that their arguments are wrong, but it is nevertheless a fully valid critique. See
The use by Carter’s critics of the “anti-semitism” label is incorrect for exactly the same reason that the use by Carter’s supporters of the term “aparthied” is incorrect: it is a loaded, emotive term, that does not accurately express the real issues, and that is used exactly to obscure them with rhetoric. This does not mean that Carter should not be justly critiqued for his (quite evident) bias (or for that matter that Israel’s policies are above criticism).
As for Carter being guided by his religious views, it doesn’t particularly bother me, as I get the sense that for Carter the guiding Christian precept is “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” That sort of thinking doesn’t worry me. We could use more of that.
I do not see any “bias” as you allege. If anything, Biblical passages would cause him to be biased in favor of Israel, not against it.
It would not bother me either if Carter’s Christianity was expressed only in such generalities as “love thy neighbour as thyself” (not, I point out, a uniquely Christian sentiment - variants of the Golden Rule show up in pretty well every human culture).
Berating a respected leader of another country for risking divine wrath for the crime of being excessively secular? That’s a trifle more disturbing. Can you think of any other example of this?
The notion that Biblical passages in the hands of Christian can only support a bias in favour of Israel is more than a bit historically naive, considering that large parts of the NT are devoted to blasting the “Israeli authorities” of their day as corrupt and evil - something Carter expressly references (in the first quote mentioned above).
Given Carter’s tendancy to conflate the Israel of NT times with the Israel of Biblical times …
I didn’t say it was unique. I said it is Carter’s guiding precept. Very obviously so. (See his work on Habitat for Humanity and his efforts toward eradication of the Guinea worm for example. Why do you suppose he is involving himself in the Palestinian question at all? I think it is because he feels the Golden Rule impels him.
OK, so you find religious man Carter’s appeals to others to be more religious disturbing. So what? What does you being “disturbed” have to do with resolution of the Palestinian problem? This just looks like an ad hominem attack on Carter to me – an attempt to portray him as a kook.
“Corrupt and evil?” I think I must have missed that quote. I see him expressing Christian concern about the mistreatment of the Samaritans. Where does “evil and corrupt” enter into it. Looks more like an appeal to the Israeli conscience to me.
But again, NONE of that really gets at the issues Carter raises in his book (Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid). Indeed, they seem like distractions from those issues. An attack on the messenger rather than the message.
I have no idea why. I suspect that a desire to secure his own legacy is a more compelling concern in this area than the “golden rule”, but that is mere speculation.
It isn’t a mere appeal to be more religious, it’s a statement that the historical lessons he’s learned indicate that Israel will bring down the wrath of God for not being religious.
Doesn’t taht raise in your mind even the slightest question as to what other “historical lessons” he may have gleaned from his Bible teachings?
How does this relate to his analysis of the situation? It indicates he’s viewing it through a Biblical lens, specifically a Christian Biblical lens. The Christian view of (biblical) Israel is not necessarily a positive one.
Pointing out that the man apparently has a religious predisposition to think the worst of his subject is, as pointed out, not a fallacious ad-hom, but a quite legitimate bias concern. Whether this makes him a “kook” is neither here nor there.
It’s an appeal to the parallel between the modern nation of Israel and the “Israeli authorities” that existed at the time of Jesus. If you have read your NT recently, you would know that this does not have positive implications: the NT is replete with examples of the hypocrasy, corruption and evils of the “Israeli authorities” at that time.
The NT account of the evils of the “Israeli authorities” at the time of the life of Christ has, for centuries, been used to justify Christian repression of Jews generally, a fact that would not be lost on those familiar with the religions and histories involved.
The issue was raised concerning Carter’s alleged anti-semitism, and the relationship between Christian belief and Zionism (see “Chistian Zionism”). My point was to demonstrate that Christian belief does not invariably lead to Zionism - the exact same set of beliefs can lead to its opposite, a religious conviction that condemns the “Israeli authorities”.
Christian Zionists look more to OT prophecy and millenialism to support their beliefs (which is also why many Jews are wary of them - after all, the whole point is that Jews have to have a state so they can convert en mass when the messiah returns!).
Carter looks to the OT as well (in paraphrase, ‘history teaches that Israel attacts God’s wrath by being secular’), but is seemingly more motivated by a NT view of the “Israeli authorities” - not a positive one.
First, to the OP: the biggest effects would be in America’s defense industries (where Israel spends a huge chunk of its aid), Israel’s economy would take a certain degree of damage and, perhaps most importantly, we’d lose leverage. As I’ve stated several times on the board in the past, the best approach is to threaten cessation of aid if specific metrics are not met. Call in all our markers without a specific timetable and set of demands first, and we’ve got nothing left that we can use to influence Israel other than Security Council votes, and I’m notsure that’d be enough.
Now, on the tangent of Jimmy Carter’s views…
Discussing the man’s character is not a distraction from the issue. Carter has long since been revealed to be a liar and a bigot, and as such noting his tendency to conflate ancient and modern Israel, as well the ease at which he crafts lies to prop up his claims, means that no factual claim he makes should be taken at face value and no logical conclusion he makes should go unexamined. Ad hom is not always a fallacy, especially when it goes to showing that someone cannot be trusted without verification. In general, if Carter tells you that the sky over Jerusalem is blue, make sure you check the weather report.
Simply, and unambiguously, Carter lies to support a partisan agenda. That there are, of course, some who will erroneously claim there is an “Israel Can Do No Wrong!” faction is not particularly worthy of analysis, but that many of the same people support Carter, despite his proven track record of lying to shill for an agenda and bigotry against a nation, to the point where he will simply make shit up to support an Israel Can Do No Right narrative, well…
That Carter still has support on this issue is elucidative in and of itself, because when Carter gets lying he’s given to some real whoppers. In his quest to deminize Israel, for example, he claimed that during a time period of a few years Israel was unremittingly hostile to the Palestinians and was using Hamas as an excuse while, naturally, Hamas hadn’t even attacked Israel once during that period! Of course, Hamas itself had proudly taken credit for several attacks, but facts tend to get in the way of Carter’s agenda.
Now, if folks really want to discuss Carter’s mendacity or why his lies, invariably and predictably, end up supporting a narrative that Israel doesn’t want peace and the Palestinian leadership is only ever interested in peace, a separate thread would probably be called for.
I think you are overthinking their motivations. Most of the Christians I know aren’t really focused on end-time prophecies. Indeed, most just ignore the book of Revelations as much as possible.
The typical motivation you hear for supporting Israel is the whole “God’s chosen people” thing and also God’s injunction in Genesis chapter 12:
In fact, the same church I mentioned that flies the Isaeli flag also used to have a sign out front that read “Why do we fly the Israeli flag? Read Gen 12:3”
And Finn, you are doing your side of the discussion no favors with a “Carter is a lying bigot!” approach.
Particularly when you link to sites that essentially quibble over details and then you use those quibbles as a launching pad for a “CARTER LIES!” tirade.
I think my favorite silly quibble is: Gaza is not surrounded by a wall, it’s surrounded by a fence!
Christian Zionists specifically have more than one motive, but there is a very strong element of belief in Biblical prophecy. Note the wiki article above which, while Wiki is not of course an unimpeachable source, is not inaccurate when it states as follows:
What you are referring to is the last element, the so-called “dual covenant theology”.
Anybody reading along who’s curious about the facts should be sure to check the cite I’ve provided and see if spoke’s gloss is an accurate and reliable analysis of its claims.
He can objectively and without question be shown to be lying about major, important, easily verified facts. Claiming that such things are “quibbles” is not a rebuttal, it is a handwave.
We’ve been through this before. Readers should take note of what Carter’s actual lies were, and why spoke’s handwaving major lies away as “quibbles” is an invalid track to take an argument down.
I’d think that most readers will not be much swayed from an accurate appraisal of Carter’s well proven habit of lying to support his agenda by calling his lies “quibbles”. Lies like Israel hadn’t removed its forces from Lebanon when it had, lies like Hamas hadn’t attacked Israel and Israel was simply warmongering for no reason when Hamas had taken credit for dozens of Israeli deaths, lies about what treaties and negotiations said that supported Carter’s lies that Israel was in violation of them, etc, etc, etc…
Can you, or can you not, refute the fact that Carter has a habit of making massive, obvious, verifiable “factual errors”, repeatedly, and they all, invariably and without deviation, support his narrative that Israel is totally unwilling to reach peace and is a warmongering aggressor?
Whether or not he’s a liar, and whether or not that shows if he’s a bigot, will logically flow from whether or not I am correct and he deliberately uses falsehoods to sell his narrative.
Will you or will you not engage with the facts?
I’ll also note your strawman, as any number of factors might be responsible for Carter’s habit of lying and his bigotry. It’s not necessarily what moves him, but unless you’re able to refute the facts provided, then rather clearly Carter is both a serial liar and someone who rejects any facts and accepts any fictions which challenge or support his false-to-facts narrative, respectively.
Whether Israel is an apartheid state is not a matter of opinion. Factually, it is not. 25% of her population is Arab. Arabs have all the rights of Jews in Israel. A friend would not use inflammatory langauge regarding another friend, language that all the world can see. I understand, of course, that such language sells books, but Carter doesn’t need to sell books.
Come on, Finn, quit hiding behind “bigot” and just call Jimmy Carter an anti-semite. You know you want to. (Gee no one around here stoops to accusing critics of Israel of being anti-semites. No, that never happens.)
And no, I will not join you in one of your beloved post-parsing quibble-fests. Thanks for the invitation, though.
I am content that most folks with a shred of sanity recognize Carter’s efforts at peacemaking for what they are: efforts at peacemaking.* Blessed are the peacemakers* and all that. One more example of Carter trying to live his faith.
But keep on ranting about Carter the bigot. I’m sure you are convincing a lot of people.
So you’re using some pro-Israel site to critique the Guardian? How about the unambiguous facts in the little bit I quoted? Are they made up? Your pro-Israel site doesn’t question a single fact in the Guardian article, it just tries to smear the guy who wrote it and some of the people quoted in the story. Get back to me if there’s anything factual in that article that yyou can question.
Then how about the article in the Israeli newspaper I quoted? Is that Israeli newspaper anti-Israel too? How about the Israeli human rights group quoted in the Guardian? Anti-Israel? What about Desmond Tutu? An antisemite? How about the Israeli defense minister I quoted? Is he anti-Israeli too?