‘NYT’ stamps Jimmy Carter ‘radioactive’ and not ‘a force for good’

Israel/Palestine
Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter

On April 2, The New York Times published a piece by Washington correspondent Sheryl Gay Stolberg titled, “Carters Return to Capital, Onstage” spotlighting a play about Jimmy Carter’s peace talks: “Camp David” (“They had 13 days to achieve the impossible. Peace”). Carter cooperated in the Arena Stage production, even giving a private diary to the writer Lawrence Wright.

The following paragraphs are the Times at its absolute worst on this subject. Worship of mainstream Washington, allowing courtiers to define the parameters of what is good and bad, letting “many Jews” with a starry-eyed view of Israel define what one is supposed to believe, picking one “expert” (Aaron David Miller) to be the authoritative voice, defining any sympathy for Palestinians and criticism of Israel as “off the highway”, etc…

Acolytes of Mr. Carter hope that “Camp David” — produced by a longtime Carter confidante, Gerald Rafshoon, and written by Lawrence Wright, a Pulitzer Prize winner — will be a powerful reminder of the signature triumph of the Carter presidency and perhaps revive the decades-long effort to rehabilitate him….

But the play, which runs through May 4 at Arena Stage, during another fateful juncture in the bloody road to Middle East peace, may also prompt comparisons to Mr. Carter’s more recent history. He has met with Hamas leaders, criticized Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza, and infuriated many Jews with his 2006 book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”
As the Obama administration struggles with its own peacemaking initiative, Washington does not see Mr. Carter as a force for good in the Middle East.

“There is no doubt in my mind that the most significant achievement in Arab-Israeli peacemaking over the course of the last 50 years was done by Jimmy Carter,” said Aaron David Miller, a longtime Middle East negotiator. But now, “Carter’s sensibilities on negotiating and the Arab-Israeli peace process have basically run off the highway,” he added. “He has achieved a sort of radioactive status, paradoxically, on the one issue in which he succeeded.”

Jimmy Carter has been exiled from mainstream political life, and the Democratic Party, because of his position on one subject, Palestine. When he said that Israel practices apartheid, back in 2006, he was paddled by Wolf Blitzer, Al Franken and Terry Gross. Now Israeli officials use the word whenever they please. The Times is a full participant in Carter’s shameful and tragic excommunication.

About Donald

Donald Johnson is a regular commenter on this site, as "Donald."

Other posts by .


Posted In:

No Responses Yet

  1. Krauss
    April 4, 2014, 12:16 pm

    I’ve long complained that there is no authorative book on the subject of the New York Times and Israel/Palestine. I guess I should stop complaining since the recent output of work by Phil and company on the subject is soon no longer just a few mentions, but a regular topic of discussion.

    I want the book because the NYT is the shaper of opinion, but it is also a deeply Jewish paper, to this day and the subject of Israel/Palestine goes to the heart of Jewish sociology, especially in the post-67 world.

    The topic of why Carter was excommunicated is as much about Jewish sociology as any other subject, I’d argue it is the primary subject, because the Times is run by people like Bronner and Rudoren, who are, as we like to call them, “culturally bound”.

    Mearsheimer once compared the Israeli lobby to the mafia; they like to make examples out of people. And he stood unbowed, unlike Carter, who was timid in the face of assault. And Mearsheimer/Walt also compared it to a “loose coalition”, in which not just professional organizations like AIPAC but also individual journalists and, I’d argue, institutions like the NYT, work towards the same broad goals.

    As they both made clear: there is no secret planning room. There is not even a shared set of goals. Each group/institution has their own take on the broad goals, but the goals – protect Israel at all costs and attack and smear anyone who fundamentally questions Zionism – are the same.

    • pabelmont
      April 4, 2014, 12:21 pm

      Deeply Jewish? Maybe that too. But surely deeply Zionist, primarily. For its Zionist propagandistic leaning landslide is enormously offensive to many Jews.

      • Krauss
        April 4, 2014, 12:40 pm

        Deeply Jewish? Maybe that too. But surely deeply Zionist, primarily.

        Jews over the age of 50, especially well-off Jews in the New York media, are overwhelmingly Zionist. And even if they are not, they understand its better to be quiet. Just like John Judis was for all these years until recently, as he felt the tides shift. Sure, you could see small signs earlier, but it was just that, small signs.

        For you and me, pabel, Zionist =/= Jewish. But I think you’re overestimating the “many Jews”, at least in the élite setting I am talking about.

        And I am talking about the establishment, not your average yid.

      • pabelmont
        April 4, 2014, 2:22 pm

        I guess I agree. But I’m not sure the NYT writes “to” a group of aging (conservative and/or careful not to offend) Jews. I think it doesn’t write “to” anyone but writes “for” a constituency which might be its owners, its advertisers (in the days of advertisers), or the social class of its owners and editors (or the class they aspire to be in) — in short the Oligarchs (or at least the BIG-ZION / AIPAC slice of the Oligarchy), or close enough as makes no never mind. As to Jews = / = Zionists, I think that’s the young (outside the birth[right]ers and their ilk) and those who were not so poisoned by holocaust as to lose their ethics and ideals (as those poisoned by many oncological drugs lose their hair).

      • Scott
        April 4, 2014, 3:07 pm

        The Times “audience” is bourgeois America, essentially that part (over 30? over 40? over 50?) which still finds a daily newspaper as essential as coffee.
        Part of that audience cares about Israel, a still smaller part about fair treatment of the subject. But the second of these three segments is vocal and powerful, especially in the New York region.

    • Krauss
      April 4, 2014, 12:28 pm

      Addenum:

      I’ve thought a lot about what makes up a shift in culture. Is it timing? There were similar books on the Israel lobby, I can’t remember the name right now but there was one that came out in the 1980s. The Jewish community was still in large part wrapped in an outsider mentality back then and it was also much more cohesively Zionist in a different way than today. That book failed big time.

      Still, I don’t think 2004 was such a great period. Why 2004? The year that the Israel lobby essay came out.

      The Iraq war had begun to go south, but within the elite media there were still a lot of bitter defenders left(it would take until 2006 for the final curtain to fall for just about everyone except the very desperate(Hitchens).

      It was pre-Cast Lead. Camp David was still fresh in people’s memories. The Second intifada was still under way and had energized the loyalties of most Jewish Zionists. It was, by and large, a really bad time to pick a fight. America was still obsessed with security and terrorism. Palestinians were regularly painted as sympathizers with Al-Qaida or some loose terrorist movement.

      Yet Mearsheimer/Walt went ahead and, in my view, single-handedly changed the topic. It’s an interesting thought, perhaps seductive, but nevertheless interesting. Their book seems to have had little real impact on the American people , at least on the surface, but there are serious shifts in the debate on campus, in the progressive media. The places where social change almost always starts.

      This goes back to Carter. He published his book two years after them. In many ways his book was far less radical. The reason why he failed, I think, is because he is a former president, but also because he failed to stand up.

      It takes a special kind of person to publish the Israel lobby essay like Mearsheimer/Walt did, so when the heat would come, they didn’t buckle. Carter, I think, felt more protected in their shadow but misjudged the public mood. Mearsheimer/Walt would still be called anti-Semites on a regular basis until at least 2010-11, when Goldberg’s increasingly desperate attacks also became increasingly isolated with fewer and fewer willing to echo his smears save for neocon rags like Tablet.

      You could say; well, Israel was moving to the right during this time. Mearsheimer/Walt were aided by this. Maybe, maybe not.

      Was it really that hard to see the lobby previously? Clinton openly talked about the power of AIPAC, but because he served them well, and his quote was his sick way of sucking up to them, he got away with it. Was it really that hard to see the mirage of a “peace process” during the 1990s and Israel built more and more and gave nothing? It went on year after year.

      I don’t think so. Nobody simply had the guts to stand up, and even more importantly, to not only withstand but to go on the offensive when the backlash came. Maybe we could have gotten here faster – looking back – but everyone thought it was “impossible” or they were just cowardly, and thus refused to do it.

      But it is easy to understand why. How many people can bear the kind of attacks John Mearsheimer, in particular, bore for years on end? Being smeared in the media over and over again. Very few. And to go out of it victoriously, as well, is quite an accomplishment, to put it mildly.

      • Little_Shih_Tzu
        April 4, 2014, 4:01 pm

        You may be thinking of ? : Edward Tivnan, The Lobby [1988].

      • Citizen
        April 5, 2014, 3:10 am

        @ Krauss
        I agree with you about Mearsheimer and Walt. As for Carter, I guess Habitat For Humanity doesn’t mean anything next to publishing a book that equates Israel’s administration of the OT apartheid.

        Will we even seen a Carter response to the subject NYT article? They’d have to print it since it would be coming from a former POTUS.

        Bush Jr has opened a gallery for his paintings, all of which seem to be heads of big time international leaders. Each painting hung on the wall is surround by news photos showing him with the applicable leader during his reign. I am a painter myself, and in my OP, his paintings are simply awful–nobody would go near them if the artist was not known. He said painting opened up a whole new world to him he had never known anything about. Never was clearing brush or chopping wood I guess…

      • thetruthhurts
        April 5, 2014, 4:05 pm

        hey citizen,
        maybe bush can have a painting done of the first time perle and wolf first met with him as suggested by condi rice so they could tutor him on how israel and the zios wanted him to “see the world”
        if i was painting it, i would make wolfie’s head kind of like a,well, wolf, with its tongue hanging out and its mouth drooling over the “gift from god useful idiot” that was being given to them on a silver platter.
        i’d paint perle, just like it looks in real life, hideous enough!

      • Bumblebye
        April 5, 2014, 8:51 pm

        Radio interviewed a woman from WaPo who was rhapsodizing comedic over Bush’s Putin. Don’t recall her name, but hopefully she’ll have a piece up.

        I’m reminded of one of Russia’s former Grand Duchesses who was a similarly ‘talented’ painter. Maybe his paintings will end up like hers – in a dusty corner of the Smithsonian! (I found her portrait of mum’s great aunt Countess Leila in an online gallery – she was nearly 90 when it was done in the late 1930′s, wasn’t evacuated from Denmark in the 40′s, died at 92 in ’44.)

    • Jethro
      April 4, 2014, 12:33 pm

      Yes, and Isabel Kershner is off and running. With her piece yesterday, the new narrative is “Palestinians broke the negotiating agreement by asking to join international treaties, so that’s why Israel is not releasing the last batch of Palestinian prisoners,” instead of the other way around. And everyone is following suit.

      Check out the way she tortures the English language to make the facts seem to fit that narrative.
      NY Times

    • Henry Norr
      April 4, 2014, 7:26 pm

      Krauss wrote: “I’ve long complained that there is no authorative book on the subject of the New York Times and Israel/Palestine.”

      I don’t know what you consider “authoritative,” but have you read “Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East” by Howard Friel and Richard Falk? (Yes, it’s that Richard Falk, the former Princeton professor of international law who is just winding up a distinguished term as UN rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.)

      >>I guess I should stop complaining since the recent output of work by Phil and company on the subject is soon no longer just a few mentions, but a regular topic of discussion.

      In addition to MW, anyone interested in this topic should be following TimesWarp (motto: “What The New York Times doesn’t tell you about Palestine and Israel”), a blog with excellent (IMO) regular critiques of the Times’ coverage by my friend and Friends of Sabeel leader Barbara Erickson.

    • G. Seauton
      April 5, 2014, 5:58 pm

      Krauss: “… the NYT is the shaper of opinion, but it is also a deeply Jewish paper….”

      Indeed, it is. I will never forget this front-page article, which appeared in the print edition on Saturday, June 29, 2013:

      link to nytimes.com

      This was the center front-page article above the fold, complete with a beautiful photo. For those who don’t wish to click on the link, the headline is “Arizona is Fertile Ground for New York Matzo,” and there is a photo of an Orthodox rabbi and other Orthodox Jews standing in a field of wheat, with the following caption:
      “Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum of New York, center, blessed wheat this week at the farm in Yuma, Ariz., that grows it for matzo.”

      The story was first published online on June 28, 2013. In the print edition, it continued from the front page to a full page in the interior of the first section of the paper. It was all about Orthodox Jews’ careful cultivation of wheat in Arizona for the preparation of matzo.

      Now, that seems a bit parochial for a paper like the Times, doesn’t it?

      Was nothing else happening in the world around that time? Let’s see. On Monday, July 1st, two days after the article appeared in the print edition, there were massive demonstrations in Tahrir Square against Morsi. On July 3, the army deposed him.

      Hmm. Seems to me Times journalists could have been writing something about the situation in Cairo leading up those events only a few days later. After all, as the ad says, “The best journalists in the world work for the Times … and there’s no debating that.”

      Or is there?

  2. DICKERSON3870
    April 4, 2014, 12:58 pm

    RE: ‘There is no doubt in my mind that the most significant achievement in Arab-Israeli peacemaking over the course of the last 50 years was done by Jimmy Carter,’ said Aaron David Miller, a longtime Middle East negotiator.” ~ NYT

    AS TO CARTER’S REWARD FOR ENGINEERING “THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT IN ARAB-ISRAELI PERACEMAKING”, SEE:
    “The CIA/Likud Sinking of Jimmy Carter”, by Robert Parry, Consortium News , 06/24/11

    [EXCERPTS] . . . As the Official Story of the 1980 October Surprise case crumbles – with new revelations that key evidence was hidden from investigators of a congressional task force and that internal doubts were suppressed – history must finally confront the troubling impression that remains: that disgruntled elements of the CIA and Israel’s Likud hardliners teamed up to remove a U.S. president from office. . .
    . . . Too many powerful interests do not want the American people to accept even the possibility that U.S. intelligence operatives and a longtime ally could intervene to oust a president who had impinged on what those two groups considered their vital interests. . .
    . . . It is far easier to assure the American people that no such thing could occur, that Israel’s Likud – whatever its differences with Washington over Middle East peace policies – would never seek to subvert a U.S. president. . .
    . . . But the evidence points in that direction, and there are some points that are not in dispute. For instance, there is no doubt that CIA Old Boys and Likudniks had strong motives for seeking President Jimmy Carter’s defeat in 1980.
    Inside the CIA . . .
    . . . As for Israel, Likud Prime Minister Menachem Begin was furious over Carter’s high-handed actions at Camp David in 1978 forcing Israel to trade the occupied Sinai to Egypt for a peace deal. Begin feared that Carter would use his second term to bully Israel into accepting a Palestinian state on West Bank lands that Likud considered part of Israel’s divinely granted territory. . .
    . . . However, Begin recognized that the scheme required Carter winning a second term in 1980
    when, [Former Mossad and Foreign Ministry official David] Kimche wrote, “he would be free to compel Israel to accept a settlement of the Palestinian problem on his and Egyptian terms, without having to fear the backlash of the American Jewish lobby. . .
    . . . Yet, while motive is an important element in solving a mystery, it does not constitute proof by itself. What must be examined is whether there is evidence that the motive was acted upon, whether Menachem Begin’s government and disgruntled CIA officers covertly assisted the Reagan-Bush campaign in contacting Iranian officials to thwart Carter’s hostage negotiations.
    On that point the evidence is strong though perhaps not ironclad.
    Still, a well-supported narrative does exist describing how the October Surprise scheme may have gone down with the help of CIA personnel, Begin’s government, some right-wing intelligence figures in Europe, and a handful of other powerbrokers in the United States. . .

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to consortiumnews.com

  3. seafoid
    April 4, 2014, 1:22 pm

    Carter was the last president to take the environment seriously. The only one to speak the truth about Israel. The sustainability of the American way of life and the long term viability of Israel are 2 fantasies but nobody wants to know.

    • just
      April 4, 2014, 1:44 pm

      True, seafoid.

      And if there was ever a President that acted consistently as “a force for good”, it is Jimmy Carter.

      • seafoid
        April 4, 2014, 1:57 pm

        When Reagan won the future was sacrificed. Israel went nuts building YESHA. The US turned its back on sustainability and energy sanity. Most suburbia built post 1980 in the US and the settlements is going to have to be written off later this century.

      • bilal a
        April 4, 2014, 6:44 pm

        Carter was a career ICBM delivery system inside the Navy, he never left that mindset , and his truths on Palestine will not atone for what he did to a myriad of USSR and Afghan civilians:

        How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
        link to counterpunch.org

    • pabelmont
      April 4, 2014, 2:32 pm

      Al Gore has spoken rather clearly about the CC/GW problem. I’m sorry that the ex-presidents don’t get together to try to tell the public what the p-in-office cannot or will not say, about I/P, about CC/GW, about American economy, overblown military, about the Oligarchy (the very rich running everything). I suppose it is misplaced politeness — you know, “I had my turn and now it is your turn.” This is misplaced, however, because when in office they had all the fund-raising problems w/o which control by oligarchy would not work. On that view, being out of office is the FIRST time a president has the chance to “tell it like it is.”

  4. piotr
    April 4, 2014, 1:52 pm

    The facts that

    1. Carter is responsible for the only peace-making achievement in the Middle East.

    2. Since then, he achieved “radioactive status”.

    Are both true, and logically connected. What it takes for peace-making to be genuine rather than phony became radioactive, so no further genuine peace-making activities are possible — as long as this status quo is unchanged.

    • JeffB
      April 4, 2014, 2:33 pm

      @piotr

      Carter did a nice job. But I’m going to give the credit to Sadat who bravely stood up to forces on his side and lost his life for peace. In addition Sadat’s protege Mubarak encouraged King Hussein. Carter deserves tons of credit for 1st class mediation at Camp David but if you are going to give the credit to anyone Sadat is who deserves it.

      • jimby
        April 4, 2014, 3:53 pm

        @jeffb… Sadat was assassinated after Israel hung him out to dry when they reneged on major parts of Camp David. Begin signed and so did the Knesset that Israel would adhere to resolution 242 by which Israel was to withdraw to the so called “green line” or the 1967 borders. So Israel got what they wanted and ignored the rest leaving Anwar Sadat looking like a fool. Once again Israel failed to live up to their agreement. It seldom has.

      • yonah fredman
        April 4, 2014, 5:22 pm

        jimby- Sadat’s assassination had nothing to do with Israel’s not living up to Camp David. It had everything to do with Sadat signing a peace treaty with Israel and visiting Jerusalem and separating himself from the consensus of the rest of the Arab world and Muslim Brotherhood standards of conduct.

      • jimby
        April 4, 2014, 6:06 pm

        @yonah f.. “Sadat’s assassination had nothing to do with Israel’s not living up to Camp David.”
        Sadat became increasingly unpopular after the Camp David agreement. The fact of Israel’s failure to live up to it’s end was a major contributor. At that time the Palestinian/Israeli situation was hugely important to the Arab world. He was killed by the pan islamist Muslim Brotherhood. I remember connecting the dots at the time. Israel made a fool of Sadat. Of course it was a factor. Begin and the Knesset contributed to his death.

      • James North
        April 4, 2014, 6:13 pm

        Sadat was most definitely not assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood — but by a small offshoot that left the organization partly because it disagreed with the Brotherhood’s commitment to nonviolence.
        The truth matters because in Egypt today Brotherhood members are being murdered and imprisoned in the thousands, with scarcely a peep of protest in the West.

      • bilal a
        April 4, 2014, 6:51 pm

        Interesting how liberal critics of Israel don’t make a peep about the torture and murder of thousands of clean shaven pro democracy youth protestors in Egypt, hardly Islamic extremists.

        And they still lie about the MB and Sadat;

        weird .

        btw, Egypt also receives massive US financial aid.

      • yonah fredman
        April 5, 2014, 3:29 am

        sorry for maligning the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). They have enough tsuris without my slanders.

        I have not read the literature of the specific group that killed Sadat and maybe the atmosphere in Egypt in general and the Arab world in general might have been less anti Sadat had Begin been forthcoming on the issue of the West Bank, rather than evasive (euphemism). But in the wide scope of history it is difficult to see that those who pulled the trigger on Sadat would have been his fans had the autonomy plan been pursued with vigor and honesty. That was not the nature of those who killed Sadat. (I never interviewed them nor read their literature, but usually Islamic political assassins are not the types to be swayed by something like the autonomy plan of the camp david accords. I don’t buy it.)

      • JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 10:39 pm

        @jimby

        Sadat was assassinated after Israel hung him out to dry when they reneged on major parts of Camp David.

        Wow you guys really work hard to make everything Israel’s fault. Sinai is discussed in excruciating detail the Palestinians barely at all. Islamic Jihad the group that killed Sadat called it “Sinai treaty” so they saw it as about Sinai. Sadat’s protege ruled Egypt for three decades after his assassination. He never declared Israel to have voided the core of the treaty and he respected the peace. SCAF is in power right now, which includes Sadat’s party and they are very cozy with Israel. Egypt understood the core of the treaty to be return of the Sinai in exchange for peace.

      • Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 11:41 am

        Egypt understood the core of the treaty to be return of the Sinai in exchange for peace.

        Correction: Sadat and Mubarak understood it to mainly be about Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai and negotiating in good faith over Palestinian autonomy. Sadat insisted on the inclusion of those terms of reference. Both men wrote lengthy letters on the subject to Israeli officials too:

        The letter begins by reiterating Egypt’s commitment to peace which Mubarak describes as a “strategic, not merely tactical goal.” There then follows lengthy quotations, mainly in indirect speech, from the March 1979 letter from Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Begin to President Carter pledging to negotiate “in good faith” over Palestinian autonomy. Israeli officials were particularly pleased that Mubarak referred to Camp David as “the only document binding on both our countries,” and affirmed that this was Egypt’s policy “now and it would remain unchanged in the future.”

        Read more: link to jta.org

      • talknic
        April 5, 2014, 12:12 pm

        JeffB “Wow you guys really work hard to make everything Israel’s fault”

        As of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) after having proclaimed the extent of its sovereignty “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″link to trumanlibrary.org Israel has worked hard to bring the situation about by refusing to withdraw Jewish forces from territories “outside the State of Israel” ..”in Palestine” according to the Israeli Government link to pages.citebite.com Gradually expanding its illegally acquired gains at every opportunity link to wp.me ignoring hundreds of opportunities granted to adhere to the law by the UN in hundreds of UNSC resolutions reaffirming and emphasizing those laws link to wp.me

        “Sinai is discussed in excruciating detail the Palestinians barely at all”

        Yes. The Sinai is Egyptian. Not Palestinian.

        “Egypt understood the core of the treaty to be return of the Sinai in exchange for peace”

        Even you say the Sinai was Egyptian, tho you’ve got the deal backwards in typical Hasbara style. Read the Treaty link to wp.me In the treaty Israel agreed to withdraw BEFORE peaceful relations were assumed. i.e., withdraw for peace. Quite normal. P*ss off back to your own territories if you want peace. One would have to be rather moronic to think otherwise. Seems plenty of Israel’s apologists do

      • American
        April 5, 2014, 12:36 pm

        JeffB says…

        “Wow you guys really work hard to make everything Israel’s fault”
        >>>>>>

        You went, you stole, you killed in the name of the Greater Good for the Jews— you keeping stealing and you keep killing to steal more and keep what isn’t yours.
        Yea you are guilty. Your greater good isn’t good.

      • Shingo
        April 5, 2014, 5:36 pm

        Sinai is discussed in excruciating detail the Palestinians barely at all.

        That is because Begin insisted that the negotiations between Israel and Egypt were an entirely different matter to the Palestinian issue. When Carter pressed Begin to include the Palesitnian issue, Begin threatened to sabotage the talks and blame it all on Carter.

        Of course, Carter then pressured Saddat to drop the Palestinian issue and threatened that he would blame Saddat.

        Another case of a US president buckling to the Israelis.
        link to mondoweiss.net

        Sadat’s protege ruled Egypt for three decades after his assassination. He never declared Israel to have voided the core of the treaty and he respected the peace.

        See above. By that stage, Washington has hooked Cairo onto it’s aid package and the fat cats in Cairo were not interested in ending the gravy.

      • JeffB
        April 5, 2014, 5:47 pm

        @Shingo

        JeffB:Sinai is discussed in excruciating detail the Palestinians barely at all.

        Shingo: That is because Begin insisted that the negotiations between Israel and Egypt were an entirely different matter to the Palestinian issue. When Carter pressed Begin to include the Palesitnian issue, Begin threatened to sabotage the talks and blame it all on Carter.

        Of course, Carter then pressured Saddat to drop the Palestinian issue and threatened that he would blame Saddat.

        Another case of a US president buckling to the Israelis.

        The original point by Jimbo was that Israel violated the accord and that’s what got Sadat killed. I argued that Camp David was an Israeli / Egyptian accord about Sinai it wasn’t about the Palestinians. You aren’t disagreeing in the above.

      • Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 10:36 pm

        I argued that Camp David was an Israeli / Egyptian accord about Sinai it wasn’t about the Palestinians. You aren’t disagreeing in the above.

        Okay, I’m disagreeing and so are the State Department’s Historians:

        Israel rejected Egypt’s insistence on withdrawal, especially from the West Bank and Gaza. It argued instead for some form of Palestinian autonomy during a five-year interim period followed by the possibility of sovereignty after the interim period expired. The impasse over the West Bank and Gaza led Carter to intercede directly in an attempt to resolve the deadlock.

        The talks ranged over a number of issues, including the future of Israeli settlements and airbases in the Sinai Peninsula, but it was Gaza and the West Bank that continued to pose the most difficulty. Specifically, the delegations were divided over the applicability of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 to a long-term agreement in the territories, as well as the status of Israel’s settlements during projected negotiations on Palestinian autonomy that would follow a peace treaty. In the end, while the Summit did not produce a formal peace agreement, it successfully produced the basis for an Egyptian-Israeli peace, in the form of two “Framework” documents, which laid out the principles of a bilateral peace agreement as well as a formula for Palestinian self-government in Gaza and the West Bank.

        link to history.state.gov

      • James Canning
        April 7, 2014, 7:44 pm

        Yes, Carter failed in his effort to get Israel out of West Bank, Gaza and Golan. And Sadat got killed, partly as result.

    • JeffB
      April 4, 2014, 10:48 pm

      @James

      The truth matters because in Egypt today Brotherhood members are being murdered and imprisoned in the thousands, with scarcely a peep of protest in the West.

      That alliance is everyone who hated the MB: Leftists, Nasrists, Socialists, Communists, Christians, Liberals. It creates a balanced alliance of interests and thus is likely to be stable. The MB’s hold on the uneducated and poor Egyptians may be broken but regardless the open fighting means no more petty pandering with anti-Americanism. So we now have a pro-American and even pro-Israeli government.

      At some point the MB is crushed and the population flipped enough that SCAF can win elections. Then even the democracy problem goes away. Why would the west object? It is hard to picture how things could have worked out better.

  5. biorabbi
    April 4, 2014, 3:08 pm

    The point should be made that the Israeli haters also are not so pristine on the subject of President Carter. I seem to recall during the ‘arab spring’ demonstrations the utter glee at the prospect of potential Egyptian abrogation of the Camp David Accord. I seem to recall the constant scorn at the details of the Camp David Accord which were purported to assist only the security of Israel. Now Jimmy’s a saint? He was the smartest President, the smartest ex-president, he detests Israel, and, more mildly, dislikes Jews. What’s not for the Mondoweiss crowd to love?

    • just
      April 4, 2014, 3:17 pm

      “he detests Israel, and, more mildly, dislikes Jews. ”

      citation please.

      Thanks.

      • Donald
        April 6, 2014, 3:48 pm

        “he detests Israel, and, more mildly, dislikes Jews. ”–biorabbi

        citation please.–just

        It’s probably just his bigotry. I’ve seen this before in people. Jimmy Carter is a devout evangelical Christian and somewhat critical of Israel. It follows in some people’s minds that he must dislike Jews. It’s projection.

      • tree
        April 6, 2014, 3:55 pm

        It’s projection.

        It’s bigotry. Christians who are critical of Israel, even mildly, are anti-semites in the mind of a Jewish bigot. Christians who are not critical of Israel are only potential anti-semites. Its Jewish bigotry against Christians. Bigotry can run both ways, but Jewish bigots like biorabbi like to pretend that their own bigotry toward Christians, or other non-Jews, is actually the fault of the Other.

    • Shingo
      April 4, 2014, 4:02 pm

      I seem to recall during the ‘arab spring’ demonstrations the utter glee at the prospect of potential Egyptian abrogation of the Camp David Accord.

      Only because the accords have become so absurdly distorted and corrupted by Israel and the US to the point where Egypt had become Israel’s enabler.

      He was the smartest President, the smartest ex-president, he detests Israel

      I am pretty sure than in private, most former US presidents and and senators and congress would detest Israel. Even Clinton has since admitted that Israel is not interested in peace.

      What’s there to love about apartheid?

      • pabelmont
        April 4, 2014, 4:40 pm

        And what’s to love about being forced (by BIG-ZION) to make nice with apartheid? Does the slave love his master? Obeys, yes, smiles perhaps, but loves?

        And to make my feelings on this clear, I believe the USA would dump Israel (or at least its occupation and settlements) if it could. It cannot: slave.

        Can anyone point to anything that suggests that the Israeli settlements (or prolonged occupation) are positive for ANY US interest (other perhaps than BIG-DEFENSE which sells a lot of arms to everybody)? But as to BIG-DEFENSE, would they not sell as many arms — or even more so — if Israel were confined to a smaller territory? Would Israel start fewer wars, test fewer US arms, spy less on Arabs and Persians?

    • talknic
      April 4, 2014, 6:04 pm

      @ biorabbi “.. the Israeli haters also are not so pristine on the subject of President Carter. I seem to recall during the ‘arab spring’ ….”

      Search link to mondoweiss.net for “Arab” Results 1
      Search link to mondoweiss.net for “arab” Results 10

      Coming from someone who reveals themselves to be a dedicated ‘a‘rab hater… LOL

      The vile types illegal Israeli expansionism seems to attract is quite revealing

    • biorabbi
      April 4, 2014, 6:47 pm

      James North writes Sadat was not assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood — but by a small offshoot of the organization…. What? Do you realize that you can be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and also be a terrorist? or you could be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and work in the political sphere. Do you know a thing about the MB? Do you realize the DIRECT spiritual godfather of Bin Laden and his ENTIRE group and of Salifism was a brilliant, Egyptian intellectual named Sayyid Qutb. Do you know he was a proud member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

      Yes. Sadat was murdered because he let the Islamists out of jail. Mubarak rectified this mistake. Now Sisi is cracking down on the Islamists… both the hardcore Salafis and also the kinder, gentler Morsi. The truth does matter.

      BTW… not only is there hardly a peep in the arrest at the murder and judicial expunging of the Islamists from this world, but there is little protest or furor within Egypt for that matter. Half the population hates them. I don’t thin the west gave a fuck about the murder of a million Rwandans, 200,000 Syrians, or 6 million Jews either. But Sheldon Adelson, Apartheid in Israel, that’s news.

      • piotr
        April 5, 2014, 1:40 am

        biorabbi is amazingly inaccurate. Yes, it is true that one can be a terrorist and a prime minister (of our most valuable Middle Eastern ally), and assorted other combinations, but it is not true that once member of a movement where other members were terrorist, then forever a terrorist (or we are all terrorists). And so on.

        I will pick a more obscure misinterpretation. “Sadat was murdered because he let the Islamist out of jail”. Wiki: ”
        In February 1981, Egyptian authorities were alerted to El-Jihad’s plan by the arrest of an operative carrying crucial information. In September, Sadat ordered a highly unpopular roundup of more than 1500 people, including many Jihad members, but also the Coptic Pope and other Coptic clergy, intellectuals and activists of all ideological stripes.[10] All non-government press was banned as well.[11] The round up missed a Jihad cell in the military led by Lieutenant Khalid Islambouli, who would succeed in assassinating Anwar Sadat that October.[12]”

        The shooters of Sadat were his own officers, while he was busy arresting everybody else. This is a conundrum of dictatorship: you cannot arrest everybody because someone should make the arrests.

      • biorabbi
        April 5, 2014, 5:11 pm

        Yes, I’m sure Sadat’s roundup of the coptic pope really stirred up the Islamist cell’s anger. The average Egyptian would appear to have warm and fuzzy feelings for the Copts. I stand chastised. Not.

      • Shingo
        April 5, 2014, 4:58 am

        Do you realize that you can be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and also be a terrorist?

        Do you realize that you can be an Israeli and also be a terrorist? Does that mean that all Israelis are terrorists?

        Do you realize the DIRECT spiritual godfather of Bin Laden and his ENTIRE group and of Salifism was a brilliant, Egyptian intellectual named Sayyid Qutb.

        Do you realize that Bin Laden ceased to recognize him as a leader and turned to Zawahiri?

        Now Sisi is cracking down on the Islamists… both the hardcore Salafis and also the kinder, gentler Morsi.

        Sisi is a corrupt, mass murdering war criminal who takes his orders from Washington and Saudi Arabia, and heralded as a hero in Israel.

        not only is there hardly a peep in the arrest at the murder and judicial expunging of the Islamists from this world, but there is little protest or furor within Egypt for that matter.

        That’s because critics are being arrested and terrorized, including those who originally backed the coup. Issuing a peep is bad for your health in Egypt these days.

        I don’t thin the west gave a fuck about the murder of a million Rwandans, 200,000 Syrians, or 6 million Jews either.

        And I don’t thin Israel gave a fuck about the murder of a million Rwandans either. In fact, I doubt many of the Zionist founders gave a fuck about the 6 million Jews who perished either. Jabotinsky, Weizmann, Herzl, Ruppin, and Ben Gurion ridiculed ordinary Jews in the Diaspora and used derogatory terms to describe them, like Yid, eunuchs, Orientals, & etc. These were “Zionist people” who claimed they were inventing a “new Jew” and they even attempted to employ eugenics in pursuit of their goals. See for example Etan Blooms dissertation on Arthur Ruppin, the Father of Jewish Settlement in Palestine.link to tau.ac.il

        Chaim Weizmann thought that the majority of the exiles in Europe were little more than human dust with no future ahead of them. He had no intention of bringing them to Palestine. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      • biorabbi
        April 5, 2014, 5:08 pm

        Shingo, I suggest you read Lawrence Wright account The Looming Towers. You write:

        “Do you realize that Bin Laden ceased to recognize him(Sayyid Qutb) as a leader and turned to Zawahiri?”

        The intellectual father of Bin Laden died in the mid ’60′s. Bin Laden never met him, let alone ‘ceased to recognized him or turned to Zawahiri’ as you put it. Qutb was an intellectual hero to both Zawahiri and Bin Laden. I also feel the rest of your well written post reflects the basic thought process of the crowd here.

      • Shingo
        April 5, 2014, 8:36 pm

        Shingo, I suggest you read Lawrence Wright account The Looming Towers.

        I suggest you do the same. Zawahiri was one of Muhammad Qutb’s students and it was he went in to become a mentor of Osama bin Laden.

        “Do you realize that Bin Laden ceased to recognize him(Sayyid Qutb) as a leader and turned to Zawahiri?”

        Qutb was an intellectual hero to Zawahiri. He might have passed on
        Qutb’s teachings to Bin Laden, but Zawahiri was his mentor.

      • talknic
        April 5, 2014, 5:12 am

        @ biorabbi“I don’t thin the west gave a fuck about the murder of a million Rwandans, 200,000 Syrians, or 6 million Jews either. But Sheldon Adelson, Apartheid in Israel, that’s news.”

        Uh huh

        Sheldon Adelson Apartheid Israel – link to google.com.au
        About 773 THOUSAND results

        Jews holocaust – link to google.com.au
        About 70+ MILLION results

        Syrian civil war – link to google.com.au
        About 77+ MILLION results

        Rwanda 1994 – link to google.com.au
        About 91 MILLION results

      • Giles
        April 5, 2014, 10:04 am

        Thanks once again for demonstrating the racism of Israel’s supporters.

        Somehow working in a reference to nobody caring about the murder of six million Jews, while omitting any mention of the five million “others” said to be killed in the Holocaust. Which is how it is done 99 times out of 100. Call them Jews and Others to show who counts and who does not and then don’t even bring up the Others when decrying the victimhood of the Jews.

      • Donald
        April 6, 2014, 3:45 pm

        “Half the population hates them. I don’t thin the west gave a fuck about the murder of a million Rwandans, 200,000 Syrians, or 6 million Jews either. But Sheldon Adelson, Apartheid in Israel, that’s news.”

        You’re delusional. At best you’re describing the fact that this website is about the I/P conflict, so quite naturally it talks a lot about Adelson and apartheid, but not so much about mass murder in the past in Rwanda, Syria, Angola, Mozambique, the eastern Congo, Sudan, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, Algeria, Spain (Spanish Civil War, you know), Greece, Yugoslavia, India/Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, East Timor, Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, China, Tibet, Russia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina, etc…. I’m just naming places where mass murder has occurred as they pop into my head.

        If you want to talk about those other cases in detail, start a website. Some of them have something to do with Israel, so we sometimes mention them here. Israel has played a role in supporting mass murder in other countries, some thousands of miles away. Some of them have something to do with the moral depravity of US foreign policy (as does our support for Israel), so they also get an occasional mention. But this website is about the I/P conflict.

        Also, this website doesn’t represent the entire world, or even “the west”, whatever the hell constitutes “the west”. Last I checked, though, there’s been a huge amount of commentary about Syria, Rwanda and the Holocaust in “the west”. And commentary is all you’re talking about–it’s not like “the west” actually does anything to end Israeli apartheid.

    • Kathleen
      April 4, 2014, 6:54 pm

      Total lies. More than anyone who has ever tried Carter truly believed in a two state solution based on internationally recognized borders.

    • talknic
      April 5, 2014, 12:15 pm

      biorabbi “What’s not for the Mondoweiss crowd to love?”

      Lying apologists for Israel link to mondoweiss.net

  6. LanceThruster
    April 4, 2014, 5:08 pm

    It’s almost as if the NYT has a hidden agenda.

    /s

  7. Hostage
    April 4, 2014, 5:49 pm

    “Carter’s sensibilities on negotiating and the Arab-Israeli peace process have basically run off the highway,”

    No he ran off the highway a long time ago when he sent Secretary Muskie to the UN Security Council during his re-election campaign to prevent the adoption of sanctions against Israel over its Basic Law: Jerusalem.

    So I tend to agree. See Carter: Boycott of Israel “too much” link to bigstory.ap.org

    Despite obvious examples of domestic apartheid policies, like the Prawer Plan and discriminatory laws affecting the rights of all non-Jews to equal treatment in the education, housing, and employment sectors, and the fact that the Israeli government headquartered illegally in Jerusalem is responsible for all of the apartheid conditions in the occupied Arab territories, Carter gives Israel a pass and refuses to endorse boycotts aimed at Israel itself. What a wuss.

  8. atime forpeace
    April 4, 2014, 6:39 pm

    The Israel firsters are going to have to go on the record. They have decided to stand for ethnocentricity, tribal superiority, and of course power through the channels of influence including the power of the purse along with the power to vilify by calumny and repetitious vitriol, smearing their enemy du jour, through the Press/MSM; their poodle.

  9. chris o
    April 5, 2014, 2:05 am

    David Aaron Miller is the safe, smart voice for the media to go to for, in the United States at least, a relatively intelligent analysis of the Middle East. Safe because he is reliably and sincerely very pro-Israel while also being smart and reasonable. I believe his statement kind of disqualifies him – he should be banished. It’s over the top. Although in fairness, there may be some context. But for the most decent, courteous, congenial gentleman and former President to be labeled radioactive is just very, very disgusting.

    • piotr
      April 5, 2014, 12:17 pm

      He is “radioactive” to “Washington consensus”. He was widely detested by the pundits while he was President and it did not improve later.

      It is really a sad statement of “Washington consensus” which is parochial, intolerant and so on.

    • Kathleen
      April 5, 2014, 6:35 pm

      David Aaron Miller NPR’s man on all things Israel and….Iran

      • just
        April 5, 2014, 6:41 pm

        yep. ;(

  10. Boomer
    April 5, 2014, 7:27 am

    Amazing, and sad.

  11. James Canning
    April 5, 2014, 4:12 pm

    Jimmy Carter was in a Seattle (Washington) bookstore Monday this past week, signing his new book. No mention in the local newspaper, apparently.

  12. unverified__5ilf90kd
    April 5, 2014, 10:47 pm

    In crude and in subtle ways US Zionists have blackballed Carter for telling the truth about Israel. They have given people the false impression that Carter was an embarrassing hick and it is therefore not sophisticated to even mention his name. The real goal was to discredit Carter’s labeling of Israel as guilty of Apartheid . The dishonesty of these ad hominem attacks makes me think that the critics of Carter cannot even be trusted as reliable Israel supporters. Now that we are at the tipping point some of these people will do a volt face and join the critics of Israel if they calculate that it will gain them more fame or reward. To my amazement I have noticed that in recent months it is now becoming fashionable to criticize Israel. Jimmy Carter who turned the other cheek may be vindicated as was Jesus.

    • James Canning
      April 6, 2014, 2:31 pm

      If criticism of Israel becomes “fashionable” in the US, I think this actually would be a good thing for Israel.

Leave a Reply