The Media Lynching of Jimmy Carter

[Tom Joad]

It seems Israel's "supporters" have conscripted me in their lynching of Jimmy Carter. Count me out. True, the historical part of Carter's book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, contains errors in that it repeats standard Israeli propaganda. However, Carter's analysis of the impasse in the "peace process" as well as his description of Israeli policy in the West Bank is accurate - and, frankly, that's all that matters.

A wag once said that there is no Pravda (Truth) in Izvestia (News) and no Izvestia in Pravda. The same can be said of our Pravda (The New York Times) and Izvestia (The Washington Post). Today both party organs ran feature stories trashing Carter using Kenneth Stein's resignation from the Carter Center as the hook. (I was sitting in the airport when this earth-shattering story came on CNN.) But like John Galt, many people must have wondered, Who (the hell) is Kenneth Stein? Stein wrote exactly one scholarly book on the Israel-Palestine conflict more than two decades ago (The Land Question in Palestine, 1984). Even in his heyday, Stein was a nonentity. When Joan Peters's hoax From Time Immemorial was published, I asked his opinion of it. He replied that it had "good points and bad points." Just like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein12082006.html

[blm]

1. The truthtellers always become the targets. I haven't believed corporate media

in over 15 years. They cannot lie to me about ANY lawmaker, especially those who stick their necks out the most for US and the rest of the world - I don't ACCEPT their lies and do not give them the satisfaction of attacking Democrats based on media-driven LIES about them.

[burythehatchet]

3. I admire Pres. Carter's courage in undertaking the task

to bring this much needed debate to the forefront. Visionaries are always attacked because they challenge the ossified thinking of the pundits and advocates.

[oberliner]

2. Norman's ridiculous attack on Kenneth Stein

Norman quickly dismisses Kenneth Stein as someone who wrote "exactly one scholarly book" on the I/P conflict. And then makes completely baseless claims about his being a "nonentity", backed up by an uncited quote from an alleged conversation he himself had with Mr. Stein about Joan Peters' book. (If Stein was such a "nonentity" why was Norman asking him his opinion on that book?)

Here is a selection from Kenneth Stein's bio on the Emory University Website:

At Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, Dr. Kenneth W. Stein is the William E. Schatten Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History, Political Science and Israeli Studies. He is the author of four books, almost a dozen book chapters, encyclopedia entries, dozens of scholarly articles, and literally hundreds of newspaper contributions.

Among his publications are Hebrew and English editions of Heroic Diplomacy: Sadat, Kissinger, Carter, Begin and the Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace (Routledge:1999); Making Peace Among Arabs and Israelis: Lessons from Fifty Years of Negotiating Experience, United States Institute for Peace:1991), and The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939, (North Carolina Press: 1984, 1985, and 2003). His most recent journal articles include “Israel's Disengagement from the Gaza Strip: Precedents, Motivations, and Outcomes, ” La Communita Internationale (Rome), Vol 4/2005 and “Lieber klein aber dafur jüdisch, Der Abzug der Israelis aus Gaza ist ganz im Sinne des Zionismus" (Better Small Yet Jewish, Israel's Withdrawal from Gaza is in Keeping with Zionism), International Politik (Berlin), November 2005.

http://www.ismi.emory.edu/Stein/Bio-Sketch.html

His full CV is here (including the book he wrote with President Carter, published in 1985):

http://www.ismi.emory.edu/Stein/kwscv.html

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Poll_Blind]

6. Raul Hilberg, who is widely recognized as the one of the foremost...

...authorities on the Nazi Holocaust had this to say about Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry:

Q: Professor Hilberg, you are one of the most prominent historians on the Holocaust. Your book, "The Destruction of the European Jews," is unanimously considered a masterpiece. So it would be very important for our listeners to have your comment on Professor Finkelstein¹s book, since it is pretty controversial.

Raul Hilberg: Well, to be honest I wish it were longer. It's a very small book. It may not be apparent but one needs a background to understand what it says. Consequently I think it is very useful but not very easy reading for those who are not familiar with what he is writing about.

Q: Professor Hilberg, generally speaking would you agree with Professor Finkelstein when he denounces the American Jewish organizations and some class-action suit lawyers for "extorting" money from Europe in order to let's say "make a killing"?

Raul Hilberg: I would in substance agree with what he says because I have said much the same things myself and the methods of the World Jewish Congress and some other organizations or people allied with it in his campaign I feel are detestable. I don't subscribe to them. In sum and substance I agree with what Finkelstein says.

  Many more interviews with Professor Hilberg on "The Holocaust Industry" at Finkelstein's site here. And yes, this is the same Raul Hilberg who was the guest of honor at an event organized by the German government on Monday of this week, along with Yad Vashem and other groups to counter the sham Holocaust symposium in Iran.

  Maybe you should like to call the German Government, Yad Vashem and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and let them know that Raul Hilberg agrees "in sum and substance" with what you describe as "one of the most antisemitic Jews on the face of the earth"?

  Please tape the call. I would love to hear their response. :hi:

PB

[Tom Joad]

7. Finkelstein, of course, does not deny the history of the holocaust,

which was a very real experience for his own parents. That he in no way denies.

What he does do, is challange those who would use that historical truth to achieve ends that are unjust.

Coulter recently attacked widows of men who died in the attacks of sept 11, 2001, because some challange the way Bush et.al. have used that very real tragedy to exploit it and advance ends that are unjust. Coulter does so in a very similar way that i have seen Mr. Finklestein attacked, complete with fanciful uses of fiction and of course, much hate.

[Tom Joad]

8. The problem we have is that somehow there is this deception that

one side has to say the other side did not suffer a terrible injustice. That is not true, and many Jewish and Palestinians see through that fallacy.

So it is not necessary to deny the reality of Jewish suffering in WWII to make a case for the rightness of seeking justice for Palestinians.

It is also not necessary to deny the reality of Palestinian suffering during the Nakba and subsequent history in order to insure Jewish survival.

I think real peace requires all to acknowledge the suffering of the other.

[cali]

5. Of course, Counterpunch is about

as credible as Frontpage, Worldnut Daily or any other far right wingnut rag. And Finkstein's article is utterly predictable, right down to that much overused term: lynching. He sounds just like Clarence Thomas.

[choie]

9. huh?

Counterpunch is about as rightwing leaning as The Nation.

[cali]

10. Counterpunch is the leftwing counterpart to

the the rags I listed in the post you're responding to. It's rabid. The language used by its "reporters" and commentators in almost invariably as inflammatory as the rightwing rags. I have yet to see anything that is remotely thoughtful in it, and comparing it to The Nation does The Nation a great disservice.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. There have been some thoughtful articles in Counterpunch...

The problem is you've got to look to find them. I try to steer away from Counterpunch due to the crap v quality quota being way too low for my liking, but I can remember a few really good articles being posted here from Counterpunch since I joined DU....

[Tom Joad]

11. It does fit Cali's worldview. so it must be attacked.

Cockburn writes for the Nation. Yes, it is to the left of many Democrats in Congress, because it really opposes imperialism rather than just saying that imperialism should be managed better, (and calls imperialism for what it is), it represents some of the best progressive stuff out there today.

Rabid? That should describe the likes of those who want to continue to fund the war in Iraq, those who think Israel is entitled to every cluster bomb it so desires, those who attack a human rights President and supports the continued Israeli colonialization of Palestinian land. That's rabid. Like the LA Times for example. Or CNN.

[oberliner]

12. Cockburn does seem to think Darfur gets too much media attention

Relative to Gaza.

Gaza and Darfur
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

<snip>

Since March 1 the New York Times has run seventy news stories on Darfur (including sixteen pieces from wire services), fifteen editorials and twenty-one signed columns, all but one by Nicholas Kristof. Darfur is primarily a "feel good" subject for people here who want to agonize publicly about injustices in the world but who don't really want to do anything about them. After all, it's Arabs who are the perpetrators and there is ultimately little that people in this country can do to effect real change in the policy of the government in Khartoum.

Now, Gaza is an entirely different story. The American public as well as the US government have a great deal of control over what is happening there. And it is Israel, America's prime ally in the Middle East that is, on a day-to-day basis, with America's full support, inflicting appalling brutalities on a civilian population. To report in any detail on what's going on in Gaza means accusing the United States of active complicity in terrible crimes wrought by Israel, as it methodically lays waste a society of 1.5 million Palestinians. Of course the death rate is a fraction of what's alleged about Darfur, but all the same, we are talking here about a determined bid by Israel, backed by the U.S. and E.U. to destroy an entire society.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12042006.html

[Tom Joad]

13. Gaza does have to do more directly with US policy.

we sponsor the occupation, we supply the gunboats that prevent Gaza fisherman from venturing offshore, we supply the F-15's that create sonic booms, we supply the bombs that are dropped on beaches....

what cockburn is saying here is that these policies are worthy of journalisitc attention.

Why should a US paper ignore these issues?

[oberliner]

14. Gaza generates a lot of newspaper coverage.

I do not think US papers ignore events in Gaza. I think a lot of journalistic attention is focussed on that region.

I think Sub-Saharan Africa is all but ignored by US papers.

And I think this line from the Cockburn article:

"there is ultimately little that people in this country can do to effect real change in the policy of the government in Khartoum."

is BS.

[Tom Joad]

16. I support ending military aid to Khartoum too.

[The Magistrate]

25. However, Mr. Joad

A much greater number people are involved in Darfur, and tremendously greater numbers of people, both in absolute terms and proportionate ones, are being murdered and tortured there. It not only deserves more coverage and outcry than Gaza, it deserves a great more coverage and outcry than it gets.

[Tom Joad]

27. Cut off all US military aid to all the parties in the conflict.

[cali]

29. Non-responsive.

Do you agree with what the Magistrate posited? Disagree? Why?

[The Magistrate]

30. As Pointless, Sir, As Most One-Size Fits All Panaceas

The killing in Darfur is wholly independent of any U.S. assistance, being conducted by local militia forces with their own small arms, with some backing by Soviet era equipment long in the Sudan government's hand.

Israel is along-standing military ally of the United States, which finds its interests in the region well served by the relationship.

A serious proposal for addressing the genocide in Darfur would be a sizeable military force under U.N. auspices with authority to shoot down the offending tribal militias.

A serious proposal for addressing the difficulties of Arab Palestinians in Gaza would be replacing the Hamas rejectionists with a P.A. government that would actually accept a peace with Israel, and quash militant elements refusing to abide by it.

[Tom Joad]

31. Tell it to the media. never said that Israel/Palestine was its only problem.

[cali]

32. non-responsive n/t

[The Magistrate]

33. It Is Your View, Mr. Joad, That Interests Me

In several years in the Darfur regions, the best estimates are that several hundred thousand people have been done to death, many by burning alive, often after gang-rape, and generally after prolonged torturous treatment. In several years in Gaza, casulaties have roughly one hundredth of this, and the majority of them the comparatively clean result of blast and bullet. It is abundantly clear which is the greater offense in humanitarian terms, which is the greater affront to human rights and dignity. Why do you think Gaza engages more interest? Why does it engage your primary interest?

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Why Is It Only Ever Tom's Views That 'Interest' You?

This isn't the first time I've seen you ask Tom loaded questions and I'm very curious to know why only Tom's opinion on this 'interests' you, as the reasons why media coverage is the way it is has been discussed by many people in many threads yet you appear to show no interest in their opinions. So what's so special about Tom?

[The Magistrate]

37. How Is That A Loaded Question, Ma'am?

The gentlemen has more or less endorsed the view of Mr. Cockburn that the media focuses more attention on Darfur than it should, and less on Gaza than it should. The reasons of scale that make it seem obvious to me that that view is tenditious at best have gone unanswered save by two very poor exercises in sloganeering. Certainly he is not required to answer me with an open statement of his views on the question, but it does interest me, and will continue to. The subject of "the media" does not particularly interest me here, and it is not my purpose to engage on it.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. After struggling my way through a bunch of fishing hooks to get here..

..I'm happy to say I'm still in one piece!

If you aren't trying to corner Tom into some statement where you can ascribe some sinister motivations to his answer, then you have my most effusive apologies. But this isn't the first time you've shown such a keen interest in Tom, Tom And Nothing But Tom, and well, I'm starting to feel a bit of sibling-like jealousy, so I've decided I agree with what Tom's said in this thread and therefore you can see me as more or less endorsing the view of Mr. Cockburn that the media focuses more attention blah blah blah. What's more, I own a copy of Norman Finkelstein's 'Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict' which I happen to think is okay, and think his writing on his website and in 'A Nation On Trial' about Daniel Goldhagen's 'Hitler's Willing Executioners' was top notch stuff. Okay, I'm waiting patiently for all these Curious Questions now! ;)

[The Magistrate]

48. Sibling Jealousy, Ma'am?

My attentions are always individual, and cut to appropriate measure. You are not Mr. Joad. The bulk of your commentary over the years here displays distinctly different character.

It has long been my view that one of the most striking characteristics of the Israel v. Palestine conflict is the contrast between its trifling scale and the amount of attention focused on it, and the hyperbolic rhetoric that that attention is expressed in. Where such disproportionate response is encountered in life, it is always an indication the item is serving as a symbol of something else, and that the energies focused on it are displaced from their actual source, though there is rarely any obvious clue what that original source is, or why the displacement is occuring.

Finklestein ranks, as you know, pretty low on my list. As our Mr. Lithos often observes, he walks a very fine line. He is a competent scholar, and generally manages to toe that line well enough, though on occassion he fuzzes over from scholarship into propagandas. His work is certainly prone to mis-use by persons with an agenda somewhat different from his, and these lapses on his part do make him in some degree responsible for this mis-use, because were he more careful and disciplined in his presentation, these people would find his efforts of little use. The proposition that there are persons who mis-use the fact of the Hitlerite crimes to gain some personal advantage is in itself hardly objectionable: it is in the character of us clever monkeys that there is nothing someone will not find a way to make use of to their own advantage. It is also in the character of us clever monkeys that those who fancy themselves bold and unique iconoclasts will push things farther on their chosen lines than it is accurate or wise to do.

[cali]

15. Not at all, Tom .

I don't care for screeching or polemics. Something, alas, that you appear to be all too attached to. Give me Harper's and Lewis Lapham over the vulgar Mr. Cockburn anyday. I do find hyperbole most distasteful, and I'm less than fond of black and white thinking, or those that think they have a franchise on the "truth".

My dislike of yellow journalism has nothing to do whether a periodical falls to the left of Congress. What a silly statement! I prefer thoughtful, nuanced journalism to simplistic screeching. I do understand, however, that some of you are more comfortable with simplistic formulations of complex human problems. To each his/her own.

edited to add that my world view is not quite as simple as your assessment of it. It's rooted in my beliefs: I'm a Buddhist, as well as my education, my upbringing, and my life experiences. Presuming that you know my world view, from having read my posts on a political discussion board, is a tad presumptuous.

[Jcrowley]

49. Um

"That's right, Carter supported Indonesia through the worst of the abuses it perpetrated in E. Timor, and supported the Indonesian takeover of E. Timor with both arms and money. Carter also supported the vile El Salvadoran government."

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn1018.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2989478&mesg_id=2989478

Wonder who would ever use that site to prove a point?

Your assessment of Counterpunch is not only far off but seems to be a matter of convenience.

[bemildred]

17. Well, it's not very pretty, is it?

The Mighty Wurlitzer spins on. But in fairness, I can't say Finkelstein's effort here is much better. So I guess it's a fair fight.

[Tom Joad]

18. All Carter is saying is that Israeli and US policy is not fair to Palestinians, and for

that the media is opening up the gates to the attack dogs for the status quo, accusing Carter of all kinds of vile things. Whether we like Finkelstein's particular views is really a minor issue in comparison.

[bemildred]

19. I'm mostly on Carter's side here.

I agree that the attacks on Carter have been dirty and demeaning. Jimmy is just speaking his mind, and people that call him anti-semitic just degrade the meaning of the word and discredit themselves. And the same applies to the other name-calling attacks on his opinions. I think the comparison he makes with apartheid is pretty obvious, although not perfect.

I'm just saying that the Finkelstein throws propaganda around pretty competently too. He uses slurs, innuendos, and loaded language very well. Which seems to be how the game is played.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Why the attacks are so vicious...

This is just my opinion, so of course I think there's some merit to it. The reason for the down and dirty attacks is because Jimmy Carter dared to portray the I/P conflict as having a Palestinian perspective as well as an Israeli one. That's just not acceptable in an environment where the Israeli perspective is the only one that is usually seen in the mainstream, and so bullying and over-the-top attacks ensue in an attempt to make sure no-one else gets the bright idea to try to portray the I/P conflict in a reasonably balanced manner. Allowing people to see that the Palestinians as well as Israelis have suffered greatly and that Israel as well as Palestinian leaderships have blood on their hands is the sort of thing that will lead to the destruction of Israel if left unchecked. Therefore a concerted campaign of calling Jimmy Carter nasty names must be unleashed in all its fury to ensure that by the awesome power of free speech, people like him will think twice in future and be more careful about how they use that awesome power of free speech....

[bemildred]

22. Losing control of the terms of the debate, it is called.

See here also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x159355

Jimmy and similarly placed public figures are much more dangerous than the likes of David Duke, because they have credibility and one cannot discredit them effectively with the usual name calling tactics. Whatever Jimmy is, he is not filled with hate, and he still seems sharp for his age and all.

[cali]

23. What kind of vile things

is the MSM enabling these purported attack dogs? Remember, I'm not talking about such periodicals or websites such as Frontpage or Townhall. And just for the record, one more time, I greatly admire President Carter, and I have no problem with his use of the word apartheid in the title of his book. Conversely, I have no problem with reasoned criticism of his book. I don't have any use for criticism that strays into the personal.

Tom, if you choose to answer my question, please provide specifics, instead of the general accusations you flung about in the the post I'm responding to.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Psst. I think Tom might have put you on ignore a fair while back...

And if he hasn't, he really should have by now, imo...

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

24. Finklestein really is a nut who deserves to be called out

on his outrageous accusations and statements. His website is a real piece of work. Take, for instance, his comparison of MEMRI to Julius Streicher and the Nazi propaganda machine. Now one can contest the emphasis MEMRI places on information that paints the Arab media and Arab governments in a negative light, but calling MEMRI nazis is loony.

His obsession- and it can rightfully be called that- with Dershowitz is almost funny. An absurdly large part of his site is dedicated to Dershowitz. But strangest of all perhaps, is Finklestein is building his own little industry: His website shills his books and relentlessly. You can't click on a posting without a hard sell for a book.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/index.php

[Tom Joad]

26. Thanks for putting up the link.

[cali]

28. Let me ask you this, Tom,

do you agree that MEMRI is the equivalent of Streicher? Do you think it's legitimate to draw an equivalency between the Nazis- Finklestein has a graphic on his site that reads "MEMRI NAZIS"- and MEMRI? I'm truly curious.

cali

[cali]

34. Please explain your gratitude:

Why precisely are you glad that I put up the link?

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Please explain why yr asking him to please explain:

Why precisely are you asking? ;)

[cali]

38. I'm sorry, Violet. I'm not addressing you.

My question was to Tom. If he doesn't want to respond, that's his business. But since you're so curious, though I think it's pefectly obvious why I'm asking him, here's why: I'm curious if he endorses Mr. Finklestein's inflammatory rhetoric, and thinks it appropriate that he associates people he disagrees with, with Julius Streicher (a particularly heinous individual), and Nazis in general.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. But I was addressing you...

..and that's all that matters in the long run. I know WHAT yr asking him. What I want to know is WHY yr asking him, especially as there's no mention of any of that stuff yr going on about in the OP. I'm pretty sure I was impressed enough with http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/content.php?pg=2">'A Nation On Trial' that I referenced it a fair bit in an essay I wrote on Goldhagen's thesis that the German people were responsbible for the Holocaust. Does that liking of one of Finkelstein's books mean you'll ask me a strange question about some Streicher dude and whether or not I approve of him? :)

[cali]

41. And I responded courteously to you, did I not?

I have frequently seen you object to sources that you find objectionable. I find Mr. Finklestein's prose in the article to be full of slurs and innuendo, far worse than those he's accusing of slurring President Carter have used. Mr. Finklestein's bizarre and ugly labeling of MEMRI as Nazis is indeed germane as to his his extreme bias.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Yeah, and I don't recall saying you didn't...

Where in the article that starts this thread does Norman Finkelstein refer to MEMRI as Nazis? Or aren't you actually talking about the OP at all anymore? Plus, you still haven't explained WHY you were asking Tom such a strange question when all he's done is post an article written by Norman Finkelstein that appeared in Counterpunch...

[cali]

45. Violet,

you started your post #39 with a pointed and imperious, "But I was addressing you". It was rude.

Let me again point out that you have frequently strongly attacked sources you didn't like. And I'm certainly still referring to the OP, as Mr. Finklestein wrote it.

As I recall, this summer you agreed with me that using Patrick Buchanan to represent views against the war in Lebanon, was counterproductive, considering his well known bias. A point I agreed with. I'm making much the same point here.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Cali...

Try reading the title of post #38. If you think me replying 'but I was addressing you' is rude, then what do you think 'sorry, Violet, I wasn't addressing you' is??

Show me where in the OP that Norman Finkelstein called MEMRI Nazis. Here's the link to the OP itself. http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein12082006.html

Using Pat Buchanan as a voice speaking out against Lebanon was counterproductive, but Norman Finkelstein is in no way anywhere like Pat Buchanan. He's written some very credible and respected books - 'Image and Reality of the I/P conflict' where he exposed Joan Peters 'Time Immemorial' with all its massive mistakes, and 'Nation on Trial' which was a critique of David Goldhagen's thesis....

[cali]

47. I disagree.

His own words, not just on his website, but in the article posted, discredit him. In fact, they deservedly marginalize him. That he's done good work in the past doesn't absolve him of his irresponsible and ugly words and accusations in the present.

Norman Finklestein is as reprehensible as Buchanan. He engages in hate and slurs. His comments about Stein are so much worse than anything Stein has said about Carter's book, that it's almost a travesty to compare the two. I may disagree with Stein, but I've seen nothing that he wrote about the book or Carter that is disrespectful or a slur.

In the article above Finklestein wrote:

He replied that it had "good points and bad points." Just like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.


That's just disgusting, and so dishonest that any thinking person should repudiate that line of attack.

If people here or anywhere else want to support Finklestein, that's there privilige. Just as it's mine to point out that his tactics are beneath contempt.