A couple of times now, I’ve posted items imagining Jimmy Carter as being motivated by a spiritual debt to Anwar Sadat. Carter made Sadat stay at Camp David in 1978 when he wanted to leave; and Sadat gave his life for the accords he signed there. Now Carter is making up to his old friend.
Well I’m finally reading Carter’s book, and I’m wrong. Carter is passionless (as James Fallows told us many years ago). He describes Sadat as the closest friend he formed in all his presidential meetings, but Sadat’s 1981 assassination is dismissed in a couple of brief references. No tears are shed, no guilt expressed. Carter is utterly impersonal. His speech the other day at Brandeis was that way too—he dropped a few (Jewish) names, like Stu Eisenstadt and Stephen Breyer, but there wasn’t really a friendly word about anyone. Compare him to Bill Clinton’s tearful speech at Terry McAuliffe’s book party at Four Seasons the other night—they’re night and day.
It’s worth remembering that Carter was a submarine commander who trained at Annapolis and the Georgia Institute of Technology. He’s a technocrat, and a Christian. His motivation in writing his bombshell book is largely technocratic: there’s a big problem here, I’m going to try and fix it. The prose in this book is dry. Carter saved his emotional moments for NBC News and Brandeis. The most emotional moment I’ve come to is when he’s running in East Jerusalem with two Israeli soldiers accompanying him and one runs ahead and kicks the newspapers out of the hands of some Arabs who are sitting and reading the papers, to make sure they’re not hiding guns. Carter goes over to apologize. He’s still offended by that behavior, as he should be.
Phil, I think there are two things going on here, and they are not related.
My reaction to your original piece on Jimmy Carter tearing up over the Anwar Sadat anecdote was: "This is nothing to do with Carter feeling responsible for Sadat's assassination and wanting to rectify that. This is a pure and simple emotional response to Sadat's death — perhaps delayed, and certainly not planned."
The book is indeed dry, passionless and technical (albeit readable). Because of all the hysteria accompanying its publication, one gets the impression that the book is an opinion piece. But it is actually a history of the negotiations and agreements reached. I found that Carter expressed no moral opinions. His only interest was that the agreements be implemented, that peace be brought to both populations, that the US get off the line-of-fire and resume its rightful place & credibility in the world of nations. Carter did allude to the material risk the US is courting by overtly siding with one of the combatants in the ME.
I think that Carter is eminently credentialed, the indispensable person to write the history of the ME peace negotiations. He was involved from the time of Golda Meir forward, he made it his business to know the players intimately, he worked hard on shepherding the process to closure. I believe the only 'spiritual' aspect to Carter's involvement is his connection to 'The Holy Land' through his Baptist fundamentalist faith. He mentioned this very early on in the book, that he accepted Golda Meir's invitation to visit Israel in part because of a passion 'to walk where Jesus walked'. And my opinion is that is exactly what kept him going all these years. Wouldn't it be wonderful if it was resolved before he passes –
The loathsome Aaron Klein has ratcheted up the character assassination of Carter :
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3357792,00.html
This man's articles in WorldNetDaily and Yediot on Arab affairs are invariably based on fabricated interviews with nonexistent sources, who obligingly provide pseudo factoids supporting the Likud terror line. The fact that he is never called on these transparent exercises in black propaganda says much about the overall supervision of American-Jewish-Israeli journalism.
Philip,
Wouldn't he, and therefore his ideas (which are really the point) be much more assailable if he were more passionate/emotional? Or is your criticism of him directed to his person, rather than to how he has chosen to conduct himself in public vis a vis this issue? (Granted, the right wing can make hay out of anything, as the past years have shown, but I think an emotional Carter would be getting a much worse drubbing than the dry ex-pres.)
Thanks for your terrific site. Must go find the Clinton speech.
Actually the thought of an Arab terrorist trying to kill Jimmy Carter is kind of absurd. It would be like them trying to blow up the Eifel tower. They generally aren't going to kill their buddies.
Why do so many people here think Carter is so "valiant" and "brave?" (words I've gleaned from a few posts over the last fee weeks).
I know Foxman and other knee-jerk critics of criticism of Israel have attacked him for using the term "apartheid." And some scholars and others have harshly criticised some of his facts and omissions. And yes, Carter Center board members were so upset they resigned…
I think his critics have over-reacted. In fact, I think they have made themselves look rather silly. But his book is a bestseller. He's been on Fox TV and Rush Limbaugh has gone after him. There may be forces out there that don't want his arguments aired, but apparently they have not been powerful enough to suppress him or to stop decidely right wing media from using his book to boost ratings. There seems to be a widespread assumption that there is a cabal out there that is bound and determined to "suppress" him. I think there are people out there who are passionately arguing with him, and that's quite different.
What's so brave and valiant about writing a book with a deliberately provocative title that he (and his publisher) knew would spark controversy? For one thing, every argument made in that book has been in the public arena –including academic discourse and blogoshere–for years. And guess what? So was every argument made by Walt and Mearsheimer. You're giving your perceived "enemies" credit for much more power than they possess.
Good point Salvage. While there are some people who see any criticism of Israel as thinly veiled anti-semitism, there is an increasing number of people who see any criticism of arguments critical of Israel as an attempt at stopping free speech, or part of a vast Jewish conspiracy to control the minds of the masses. I personally think some of the personal attacks on Carter are superfluous to the argument, but then so are some of the personal attacks on Dershowitz.
I will say this, Carter would shut his critics up if he would put his money where his mouth is and debate Dershowitz.
Dershowitz is a clown.
Big Al, Carter is a joke, the worst president we've has since Buchanan and if bought and paid for by the Saudi's. He has a problem with Jews has witnessed by his interesting comments about the makeup of the holocaust commission.
Hey PHil, wouldn't it be fun if Aaron Klein sued me for calling him a loathsome fraud, a liar, and a black propagandist? And you for hosting my libellous comments? Then we'd see some fireworks, wouldn't we?
Just to be clear, I am not saying this current attack on Carter is fraudulent, but I am saying his supposed interviews with Arab guerrillas are fraudulent.
You can find a whole archive full of them at WND, so, see for yourselves.
As is now evident to all, not only is Pearlman back, but Seth and "salvage the good" are clearly the backup apologist team which poses as "moderate" — while wanting to have a famous humanist and Nobel laureate like Carter debate a lawyer who is a genius in semantics, the guy who helped acquit O.J. for god's sake! Hey, we all know Dershowitz is a person who cares for the truth and wants an honest debate!!!
I would suggest we see Dershowitz put HIS mouth where his money is and debate Finkelstein, who proved he is nothing but a shameless propagandist and plagiarist who dared use whole portions of the long discredited book by Joan Peters, "From Time Immemorial", a notorious case of intellectual fraud, while writing the "Case for Israel".
You gotta love those "moderates" who like a guy like Dershowitz for the defense of Israel. It seems Israel and her apologists are indeed in deep trouble if they really need the guy who helped acquit O.J.!!!
Yeah "salvage the good", we all know the poor Israeli Lobby is not very powerful and is only there to counter the "vibrant" anti-Israel Lobby. We all know the ADL and AIPAC and the JDL have never, ever tried to suppress criticism of Israel and destroy the careers of politicians or journalists who dared criticize Israel. It's all blown out of proportion.
Thanks for reminding us. We love you for being a moderate voice of reason.
Thank you, thank you.
J'Accuse, Sort Of
You never know where you're going to find anti-Semitic propaganda.
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 1:14 PM ET
Rep. James P. Moran of Virginia, already a locally famous foot-in-mouther, went national last week by declaring at an anti-war rally that "if it was not for the strong support of the Jewish community," the war against Iraq would not be happening. He said that Jewish "leaders" are "influential enough" to reverse the policy "and I think they should."
The thunderous rush of politicians of all stripes to denounce Moran's remarks as complete nonsense might suggest to the suspicious mind that they are not complete nonsense. Moran himself almost immediately denounced his own words as "insensitive." He said he was using the term "Jewish community" as a shorthand for all "organizations in this country," which would certainly be a first if it were at all plausible.
As others have noted, Moran's words are less alarming for their own direct meaning than for their historic association with some of the classic themes of anti-Semitism: the image of Jews as a monolithic group suffering from "dual loyalty" and wielding nefarious influence behind the scenes. When someone touches even lightly on these themes in public, it's only natural to wonder whether his or her actual views are a lot darker.
Nevertheless, Moran is not the only one publicly exaggerating the power and influence of the Zionist lobby these days. It is my sad duty to report that this form of anti-Semitism seems to have infected one of the most prominent and respectedone might even say influentialorganizations in Washington. This organization claims that "America's pro-Israel lobby"and we all know what "pro-Israel" is a euphemism forhas tentacles at every level of government and society. On its Web site, this organization paints a lurid picture of Zionists spreading their party line and even indoctrinating children. And yes, this organization claims that the influence of the Zionist lobby is essential to explaining the pro-Israel tilt of U.S. policy in the Middle East. It asserts that the top item on the Zionist "agenda" is curbing the power of Saddam Hussein. The Web site also contains a shocking collection of Moran-type remarks from leading American politicians.
Did you know, for example, that former President Clinton once described the Zionist lobby as "stunningly effective" and "better than anyone else lobbying this town"? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has gone even further (as is his wont), labeling the Zionists "the most effective general interest group across the entire planet." (Gingrich added ominously that if the Zionist lobby "did not exist, we would have to invent" it.) House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt is quoted saying that if it weren't for the Zionist lobby "fighting on a daily basis," the close relationship between America and Israel "would not be." Sen. John McCain has said that this lobby "has long played an instrumental and absolutely vital role" in protecting the interests of Israel with the U.S. government. There is a string of quotes from leading Israeli politicians making the same point.
According to this Web site, the Zionist lobby is, like most political conspiracies, a set of concentric circles within circles. The two innermost circles are known as the "President's Cabinet" and the "Chairman's Council." Members allegedly "take part in special events with members of Congress in elegant Washington locations," "participate in private conference calls," and attend an annual "national summit." In the past members of these groups have met "in a private setting" with President Clinton, with Vice President Gore, and with the president of Turkey, among others. If this Web site is to be believed, these Zionist-lobby insiders have even enjoyed "a luncheon with renowned author and commentator George Will."
And who is behind this Web site? Who is spreading the anti-Semitic canard that Jews and Zionists influence American policy in the Middle East, including Iraq? It is a group calling itself the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and claiming to be "pro-Israel." They all claim that, of course. But in this case, AIPAC actually is considered to be the institutional expression of the amorphous Zionist lobby. All the foregoing quotes and assertions about the huge Zionist influence with the U.S. government and the lengths to which Zionists go to protect and expand it actually refer to AIPAC itself.
This doesn't make it all true, of course. AIPAC, like any organization, has an institutional interest in exaggerating its own importance. This is especially true of any organization that must raise money to support itself. The "President's Club" and "Chairman's Council" are both fund-raising gimmicks, intended to give donors the feeling that they are in the thick of government policy-making. It's more about being able to say, "As I was saying to Colin Powell" than about trying to say anything in particular to Colin Powell. Another element in AIPAC's braggadocio is rivalry with other Jewish organizations. The American Jewish Committee also has a page of quotes on its Web site about how influential it is. ("We know that yours is the most important and powerful Jewish organization in the United States," says President Jacques Chirac. Maybe it sounds more like a compliment in French.) This evident rivalry undermines any notion of a unified Jewish conspiracy.
Just as African-Americans can use the "n" word when joshing among themselves and it sounds a lot different than when used by a white person, talk about the political influence of organized Jewry sounds different when it comes from Jewish organizations themselves. Nevertheless, you shouldn't brag about how influential you are if you want to get hysterically indignant when someone suggests that government policy is affected by your influence.
"Did you know, for example, that former President Clinton once described the Zionist lobby as "stunningly effective" and "better than anyone else lobbying this town"? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has gone even further (as is his wont), labeling the Zionists "the most effective general interest group across the entire planet." (Gingrich added ominously that if the Zionist lobby "did not exist, we would have to invent" it.) House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt is quoted saying that if it weren't for the Zionist lobby "fighting on a daily basis," the close relationship between America and Israel "would not be." Sen. John McCain has said that this lobby "has long played an instrumental and absolutely vital role" in protecting the interests of Israel with the U.S. government. There is a string of quotes from leading Israeli politicians making the same point."
Wow, THIS IS ALL ON AIPAC's WEBSITE?
ROFL!!!
By the way, Mailer's Hitler novel sounds extraordinarily stupid:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Books/news/articles/0,,2000960,00.html
"Big Al, Carter is a joke, the worst president we've has since Buchanan and if bought and paid for by the Saudi's. He has a problem with Jews has witnessed by his interesting comments about the makeup of the holocaust commission." (BP)
Hey Mr. Pearlman, don't you think it's kind of odd that an anti-semitic US president would create the Holocaust Memorial Council, in the first place, like JC did? If JC made the alleged comments about Freedman's suggested list of board members, perhaps it was because he felt it was important that non-Jews play a role on the board as well? Perhaps JC didn't like the idea of only Jews being perceived as having an interest in a Holocaust memorial? Perhaps JC thought that was kind of a polarizing board makeup? That Jews could then look at the makeup of the board and say "See? We're the only ones who care."?
It's interesting, Mr. Pearlman, how you only see one possible interpretation, here.
Al CIA-duh has just bombed an Eilat bakery, killing three. Very convenient for some.
Actually, I borrowed the term "al CIA-duh" from Kurt Nimmo, but I believe it has been used by others besides him.
In these cases one hardly needs "al CIA-duh" (though it is indubitably there, with its own 'pseudo-gangs', as the classical authority on counter-insurgency warfare, Kitson, calls them).
"I know there are frustrations, and I know the heartbreak of seeing casualties. I saw them in big, big numbers upfront in the first major battle in this war on terrorism," Giuliani said. "But we have to remain on offense. We have to realize that they want to come here and hurt us, and harm us and hurt our children."
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070128/REPOSITORY/701280357/1043/48HOURS
– triangulation or what?
A predictable set of acusations and examples were trotted out in response to my post. Not one person has shown how the response to Carter was an effort to squelch his voice or why he was particularly brave.
I am interested in nuances, gradations and in estimating the true extent of the Lobby's power. I think much(although certainly not all) of that power is based on the perception that it can and will do certain things, even when it can't or won't. In DC, there is little difference between the two. That's a big reason why Congress is afraid to stand up to AIPACe.
Moran, BTW, was certainly castigated for his remarks re: Israel and the Iraq war. But guess what? He was re-elected. He had no trouble winning the Dem. primaries. His Demoratic opponent,Andy Rosenberg, complained about his lack of support from the pro-Israel PACs.
Carter did more to further the Palestine/Israel peace movement issue that any other President, and the Zionists call him anti-Semitic?
Anyone see a problem with that?
Hmmmmm,
I agree with your assesment of Carter. He tangled with the organized Jewish community from the start of his presidency and successfully fended off pressure from the community in order to forge the Israel-Egypt pact.
But, tell me, which American Jewish leader has called him an anti-Semite? Can you cite anyone? (maybe someone has but I haven't seen any references to it).
See Kenneth Stein's article for a refutation of some of Carter's book. Stein was vilified by the American Jewish right for years due to his connections with Carter and the Carter center. But he passionately disagrees with many of Carter's points. Is Stein part of The Lobby's media cabal, too?
http://www.meforum.org/article/1633
salvage, spare us your hypocrisy and go away. Too many people are getting fed up. Stop underestimating people's intelligence, you are not that bright anyway.
Just go away. Just as we wouldn't discuss the Armenian genocide with a Turk or the holocaust with a nazi, we won't discuss Carter's book with Israel's Jewish apologists. It's a waste of time and energy, one can't have rational discussions with believers, people who are too emotional to face the truth.
This blind faith of American Jews is upsetting all other Americans and will backfire. It will hurt Israel too. Wise up. Apartheid is too soft a term for what is going on in the occupied territories.
Just go away. Bring Pearlman back! At least he is funny.
P.S. You didn't read the book, did you? Of course not! All you need to know is it's critical of plucky little Israel. How pathetic to have so many people criticize Carter for a book they haven't EVEN READ!!!
"Is Stein part of The Lobby's media cabal, too?"
No. But you see, he is Jewish and has a soft spot for Israel.
But here is the bright side. It will be much tougher after this for people to argue that many american jews have a serious dual loyalty problem . It is now evident to everybody that there is only one loyalty, to Israel no matter what.
Actually these attacks on Jimmy are good..they will help seperate the jewish "cultist" from the "normal" Jews in the public's mind.
Interestingly enough my local very conserative, christian owned newpaper allowed a Jewish reader to do an op-ed in support of Israel's actions in Lebanon, the wall and etc…. and it started a firestorm of letters to the editor complaining about the basis and uneven policies of the US toward Isr and Pal. Among the most interesting letters was one from another Jew disagreeing with the op-ed and another interesting one was from a christian arguing that that the Bible didn't actually "give" Israel exclusively to the Jews.
Face it, Jimmy dislodged the boulder from the top of the hill and there won't be any pushing it back up.
And I think Carter is right to keep "passion" out of his presentations…this is mainly about our own nation's "morality" and "policy" regarding Israel and Palestine…because the truth is, the Isr/Pal conflict is one we could end tommorrow without having to fire a shot.
All the US goverment has to officially say is "we will not support Israel as long as they occupy Palestine land"…and it would be over.
Whatever, I'm not going away. You note:
"we won't discuss Carter's book with Israel's Jewish apologists. It's a waste of time and energy, one can't have rational discussions with believers, people who are too emotional to face the truth…"
And then:
"P.S. You didn't read the book, did you? Of course not! All you need to know is it's critical of plucky little Israel. How pathetic to have so many people criticize Carter for a book they haven't EVEN READ!!!"
Whatever, who is a "believer?" Who is "too emotional to face the truth?" Did you read a word that I wrote? I said I admired what Carter did as President, and admired that he stood up to the conventional Israel lobby. I did not criticize his book, which I am in the midst of reading. I was questioning the extent of the Israel lobby's ability to squelch his voice. That does not make me an "apologist" for anyone
There is a curious, furious knee-jerk reaction among many poster here that, I am beginning to realize, is an exact replica of the knee-jerk reaction against criticism of Israel. Anyone who questions some of the accusations of supernal Jewish power on this blog must be some kind of "Jewish apologist" for Israel. There are no gradations, no nuances. According to this mindset, there is no way to be a critic of Israel unless one endorses everything every critic of Israel –and American Jews– says. There is no accusation too reckless or silly or ill-informed, as long as it is an accusation against Israel and the Jews. In other words, under the guise of bravely searching for the truth and breaking so-called "taboos" against candid conversation, there is not even the slightest interest in finding out the truth. Pearlman is comical and easy to dismiss. Someone who agrees with some of what you belive and disagrees with other things you believe cannot be tolerated. (I don't think that is true of everyone who participates here, BTW. Alan, Brenda, David Hume and Ben, for example, seem interested in exploring some of the complexities and thinking hard about the current situation in the Middle East/U.S. and what can be done about it).
So, let me try again, in a different way. Isn't it possible to disagree with some of what Carter wrote and still support the same goals Carter espouses, which are a two-state solution? Isn't it also possible to like what Carter wrote and what he did, while still believing that the many of accusations against his public detractors are exaggerated? These seem to me reasonable positions for reasonable people to take…
To bend 'whatever's" mind a bit more, here is a piece basically defending Carter from a self-proclaimed Zionist who admits he is uncomfortable with the word "apartheid," MJ Rosenberg of Israel Policy Form. He also attacks the reflexive critics of critics of Israel in the American Jewish community. But he is a Zionist, so I suppose that means everything he says must be discounted, right?