Carter: Gaza residents 'starving to death'

[pelsar]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3533297,00.html

Speaking at the American University in Cairo after talks with Hamas leaders, Carter said Palestinians in Gaza were being "starved to death" and received fewer calories a day than people in the poorest parts of Africa

so who is his 'audience"...it obviously not those people who have any real knowledge of gaza.....it sure isnt the israelis with idiotic comments like that....

[Vegasaurus]

1. It's clear that Mr. Carter hasn't been reading the news these days

In parts of Africa, people are eating mud pies.

Meanwhile, the Palstinians are busy blowing up their fuel and electricity and aid trucks.

Those in sub Saharan Africa would be delighted to have fuel, electricity, or anything to eat.

Maybe Jimmy needs to attend to the true global issue of hunger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/world/americas/18food.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[jeanruss]

2. carter

What is wrong with Carter visiting Gaza and reporting what he saw? Is the world NEVER to criticize Israel for ANYTHING? All governments are flawed and the only way to remedy that is with information. Saying the people in Gaza are not starving AS MUCH as other people, doesn't make it OK.

[subsuelo]

12. nope nobody is allowed to criticize Israel

Otherwise you are branded a terror supporting America/Israel hating scumbag.

[Vegasaurus]

13. Untrue

If you collude with Hamas, however, which is clear in saying that it supports deliberate targetting of innocent people, refuses to negotiate with Israel, or even acknoweldge Israel's existence, you are a terror supporter.

That is different than criticizing Israel, which people do all the time.

[Shaktimaan]

16. That's absurd.

I've frequently criticized Israel. Criticism is not the same thing as opposition. And voicing opposition is not necessarily the same thing as disseminating propaganda, which is what Carter is doing. Make a note of this point, because it is important if you really wish to understand pro-Israel posters' anger at some of the comments made here at DU and published by people like Carter... Criticism of Israel is fine, even encouraged by most of us. But distorting history or making outright false statements designed to paint Israel in a demonic light is not fine.

Carter's crime is not that he criticizes Israel publicly. It is that he is not telling the truth. Gazans are not starving to death. It hurts both sides when influential people constantly exaggerate for dramatic effect. The effect is that no one believes anything they hear, if they are reasonably well read. And those who only read partisan media end up with a completely distorted view of the conflict which leaves them incapable of forming an intelligent opinion on the subject.

We should all be aghast when people of Carter's stature trade facts for propaganda. There can be no excuse for someone who is committed to peace to act in this manner. Every time an Israeli hears someone like Carter broadcast falsehoods like these it reinforces their worst fears about the reasons that Israel is so hated by many in the world.

[pelsar]

15. so you believe carter?

when he mentioned the "starving gazans".....

[bemildred]

3. Apparently newspapers can deal with Hamas and publish them.

But Carter cannot because it gives them "legitimacy".

Here is a Sky news interview with Mashaal:

---

KM: We didn't lose as a result of not recognising Israel or accepting their rules and conditions or the American rules and conditions. We lose because of the Arab weakness.

We didn't have enough power to stop the Israeli occupation. All the people around the world get freedom by using resistance with weapons. Why should only Arabs put their weapons away and beg Israel and the international community?

TM: But you will never have enough military power to confront them. You will never have it and you will throw away people's lives in suicide bombings. You will kill 20 people and you will lose hundreds.

KM: Look at the Israel situation now. The Palestinian resistance forced the Israelis to withdraw from Gaza. Also the Lebanese resistance forced Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon.

Only resistance could force the occupation to withdraw. I want to give you an example. (Prime Minister) Began withdrew from Sinai as a result of the October war.

---

TM: You send people to sit next to small children on buses to blow them up. I don't see the moral equivalence there. You kill small children deliberately, not as an accident, deliberately.

KM: We don't kill anyone deliberately. The suicide bombings began after Israel killed people at the Hebron mosque in 1994. Israel killed during prayers in the Mosque and as an ordinary reaction the Palestinian people started defending themselves. As a response to the Israeli crimes.

---

TM: You have a military wing sir which act like the military which target your enemy. Don't just fire a rocket into a kindergarten.

KM: We didn't attack a kindergarten. We have primitive weapons. I ask the international community and the Americans to give us more advanced weapons so we can shoot more accurately.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1311184,00.html

[msmcghee]

4. That's right. A newspaper's coverage . .

. . has little to do with legitimacy. A visit by a US ex-president to air your grievances, does. It's pretty simple.

[bemildred]

6. "A newspaper's coverage has little to do with legitimacy."

I suppose that is why we are bombarded with propaganda from news media, because newspapers have no effect on the standing of politicians.

Since you seem confused, I think both a meeting with Carter and editorials can affect the legitimacy of politicians, it's the double standard being applied to Carter that I'm pointing out. If it's OK for WaPo to deal with Hamas - which it obviously has - then they have a lot of chutzpah to suggest Carter ought not.

[msmcghee]

9. Many things seem confusing to you.

You said "newspaper coverage" implying coverage of a newsworthy event. An editorial is another matter. Those who write editorials and ex-presidents often have the same agenda - to endow or deny legitimacy to others or their causes.

BTW - The reason that newspapers have editorials is so they can separate unbiased coverage of events from the belief systems of their target reader base. The WSJ is a good example. People buy things for emotional reasons - not for logical reasons. Editorials allow the papers to plug into those emotions - and sell more papers. It's like the comics.

[bemildred]

10. No, actually, you said that.

But it still has nothing to do with what I said.

[msmcghee]

11. An interview is not an editorial. n/t

[Vegasaurus]

5. MR. Mashaal should speak to Mr. Zahar, as they seem to disagree

We all know that deliberatetargetting of civilians (Zahar's words), and killing as many as possible, are part of the Hamas resistance plan. There is no desire for a" negotiated peace", according to Mr. Zahar, only lots of dead Israeli Jews.

In fact, as Mr. Zahar makes clear, Hamas is not at all interested in a negotiated peace with the Jewish state, whose existence it refuses to accept: "Our fight to redress the material crimes of 1948 is scarcely begun," he concludes.

In that fight, no act of terrorism is out of bounds for the Hamas leader, who endorses the group's recent ambush of Israeli civilians working at a fuel depot that supplies Gaza. The "total war" of which he speaks was initiated and has been sustained by Hamas itself through its deliberate targeting of civilians, such as the residents of the Israeli town of Sderot, who suffer daily rocket attacks.

[bemildred]

7. Well, yeah, but I have the same problem with Israelis.

How to reconcile B'tselem and NuttyYahoo?

[Vegasaurus]

8. touche nt

[azurnoir]

14. So Egypt has no knowledge of Gaza

maybe if they believe Mr Carter they'll reopen the border at Rafah, I sure Israel would be thrilled.