Tuesday, December 12, 2006
My 2 Cents on Sad, Old Jimmy Carter
After D's magnum opus on how bad Carter has become since he was the worst President in the 20th Century, I didn't dare follow that, but I can't keep it in. Here are two things I have noticed about Carter's terrible book and worse book tour via other, smarter guys, right thinking Rich Lowery and lefty, but not always looney, Michael Kinsley.
Lowery gems:
The book marks Carter's further disgraceful descent from ineffectual president and international do-gooder to apologist for the worst Arab tendencies. "It is imperative," Carter writes, "that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." In the meantime, presumably, the slaughter of Jews can continue.
[...]
Incredibly, given his media presence, Carter thinks that he is being silenced by shadowy forces. He makes this bizarre claim: "My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment." Does Carter keep track of which schools have lots of Jews? And who does he think is keeping him from speaking at them?
Just as creepy is a passage in the book about Christians in Galilee who "complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities -- the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost 2,000 years earlier." As New Yorker writer Jeffrey Goldberg notes, "There are, of course, no references to 'Israeli authorities' in the Christian Bible. Only a man who sees Israel as a lineal descendent of the Pharisees could write such a sentence."
Kinsley's main point:
But in other ways, the implied comparison is backward. To start with, no one has yet thought to accuse Israel of creating a phony country in finally acquiescing to the creation of a Palestinian state. Palestine is no Bantustan. Or if it is, it is the creation of Arabs, not Jews. Furthermore, Israel has always had Arab citizens. They are a bit on display, like black conservatives at a Republican convention. No doubt they suffer discrimination. Nevertheless, they are citizens with the right to vote and so on.
There used to be Jews living in Arab nations, but they also fled, in 1948 and subsequent years -- in numbers roughly equivalent to the Arabs who fled Israel. Now there are virtually no Jews in Arab countries -- even in a moderate Arab country such as Jordan. How many Jews do you think there will be in the new state of Palestine when its flag flies over a sovereign nation?
And the most tragic difference: Apartheid ended peacefully. This is largely thanks to Nelson Mandela, who turned out to be miraculously forgiving. If Israel is white South Africa and the Palestinians are supposed to be the blacks, where is their Mandela?
Lowery gems:
The book marks Carter's further disgraceful descent from ineffectual president and international do-gooder to apologist for the worst Arab tendencies. "It is imperative," Carter writes, "that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." In the meantime, presumably, the slaughter of Jews can continue.
[...]
Incredibly, given his media presence, Carter thinks that he is being silenced by shadowy forces. He makes this bizarre claim: "My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment." Does Carter keep track of which schools have lots of Jews? And who does he think is keeping him from speaking at them?
Just as creepy is a passage in the book about Christians in Galilee who "complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities -- the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost 2,000 years earlier." As New Yorker writer Jeffrey Goldberg notes, "There are, of course, no references to 'Israeli authorities' in the Christian Bible. Only a man who sees Israel as a lineal descendent of the Pharisees could write such a sentence."
Kinsley's main point:
But in other ways, the implied comparison is backward. To start with, no one has yet thought to accuse Israel of creating a phony country in finally acquiescing to the creation of a Palestinian state. Palestine is no Bantustan. Or if it is, it is the creation of Arabs, not Jews. Furthermore, Israel has always had Arab citizens. They are a bit on display, like black conservatives at a Republican convention. No doubt they suffer discrimination. Nevertheless, they are citizens with the right to vote and so on.
There used to be Jews living in Arab nations, but they also fled, in 1948 and subsequent years -- in numbers roughly equivalent to the Arabs who fled Israel. Now there are virtually no Jews in Arab countries -- even in a moderate Arab country such as Jordan. How many Jews do you think there will be in the new state of Palestine when its flag flies over a sovereign nation?
And the most tragic difference: Apartheid ended peacefully. This is largely thanks to Nelson Mandela, who turned out to be miraculously forgiving. If Israel is white South Africa and the Palestinians are supposed to be the blacks, where is their Mandela?
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:59 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I have to say again that I don't think Carter was the worst president in the 20th century. Pride of place goes to that famous bigot and promoter of ineffectual international organizations, Woodrow Wilson.
Carter is pretty clearly, and by a long way, the worst ex-president, though.
Carter is pretty clearly, and by a long way, the worst ex-president, though.
http://www.fmep.org/analysis/articles/jimmy_carter_on_palestine.html
For example, in 2002, Michael Ben Yeir, who was the Israeli attorney general from 1993 to 1996, said that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands after 1967 “was the product of our choice. We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, [and] engaging in theft. ... We developed two judicial systems: one progressive, liberal -- in Israel and the other -- cruel, injurious -- in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime. ... This oppressive regime exists to this day.”
For example, in 2002, Michael Ben Yeir, who was the Israeli attorney general from 1993 to 1996, said that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands after 1967 “was the product of our choice. We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, [and] engaging in theft. ... We developed two judicial systems: one progressive, liberal -- in Israel and the other -- cruel, injurious -- in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime. ... This oppressive regime exists to this day.”
# posted by 
: 5:11 AM
: 5:11 AM
Doug, I know you hate Wilson but he's a Virginian so I cut him some slack. Yermomma, I can quote a former attorney general of the United States (Ramsey Clark) but I won't generally get the truth, just more looney left cant. Israel conquered lands from Egypt and Jordan. It has given back all of the Egyptian land and is ready to give back most of the Jordanian land. Who else has done that? All nations have a different internal civil judiciary from the court system in recently conquered lands. It doesn't mean they're like South Africans.
While born in Virginia, he is perhaps better known as the president of Princeton (where he segregated the campus). If you think of him as a New Jerseyite, I think you'll find it easier to come to the correct opinion about his, ummm, qualities.
8-)
Post a Comment
8-)
<< Home
