Jimmy Carter Apologizes For Criticizing Israel

[Meshuga]

"Former President Jimmy Carter apologized this week for criticizing Israel for its treatment of Palestinians in his writings and comments, statements like calling the Jewish nation an "apartheid" state which, he suggests, may have stigmatized it.

Carter's Al Het, which means "for the sin" in Hebrew, actually came earlier in the week when Carter issued it to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. But it really started to go viral Wednesday.

Here's Carter's Al Het:

An open letter to the Jewish community at the season of Chanukah from former President Jimmy Carter:

The time of Chanukah and the Christian holidays presents an occasion for reflection on the past and for looking to the future. In that vein, I wish to share some thoughts with you about the State of Israel and the Middle East.

I have the hope and a prayer that the State of Israel will flourish as a Jewish state within secure and recognized borders in peaceful co-existence with its neighbors and with all the Moslem States, and that this peaceful co-existence will bring security, prosperity and happiness to the people of Israel and to the people of the Middle East of all faiths.

I have the hope and a prayer that the bloodshed and hatred will change to mutual respect and cooperation, fulfilling the prophetic aspiration that the lion shall lie down with the lamb in harmony and peace. I likewise hope that violent attacks against all civilians will end, which will help set a better framework for commencing negotiations. I further hope that peace negotiations can soon commence, with all issues on the negotiating table.

I have the hope and a prayer that just as Chanukah is the Festival of Lights, the State of Israel will fulfill its destiny as a light unto the nations.

We must recognize Israel's achievements under difficult circumstances, even as we strive in a positive way to help Israel continue to improve its relations with its Arab populations, but we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel. As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so.

May we work and pray for that better day.

Hag Semach and Happy Chanukah.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/12/jimmy_carter_apologizes_for_cr.html

[regnaD kciN]

1. Message received...

Even if you're a respected Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Israel remains the "third rail" -- criticize it, and your reputation will be smeared, until you have to grovel in apology for daring to dissent from the party-line of "Israel always good -- Palestinians always evil." :grr:

[marybourg]

2. Apparently you're smarter than Pres. Carter.

:sarcasm:

[Violet_Crumble]

3. Well, if he was actually apologising for having criticised Israel...

...that'd make the average garden slug smarter than him. I don't think he was apologising for critising Israel, and I'm not sure why people seem to think that people like Carter need to apologise for daring to criticise a country that's carrying out a violent occupation and which commits a multitude of human rights violations in doing so. How come no-one demands that the Israeli govt apologises for what it does to the Palestinians?

[Shaktimaan]

7. Are you kidding?

How come no-one demands that the Israeli govt apologises for what it does to the Palestinians?

Last time I checked, people demand that constantly.

Whether or not Carter apologized didn't matter to me at all. But that's not to say that his book wasn't appalling to me. And not because he was daring to criticize Israel either. It was just a bad book. Carter could have made any number of legitimate criticisms against Israel. Why he chose to write such a biased, historically dishonest book is beyond me.

Actually, that's not quite true. There was a disturbing narrative woven through the book that seemed to be critiquing Israel in a spiritual sense, seemingly for a specific purpose. IMO, to shake the support that Israel enjoys from fundamentalist Christians in the US. To me, that aspect was glaring, almost clumsy in its execution, but we can never expect to know his real motivation.

[azurnoir]

8. Carter: Grandson’s race not reason enough to apologize

<1>WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Jimmy Carter is asking the Jewish community for forgiveness -- and insists it’s not simply because his grandson has decided to launch a political career with a run for the Georgia state Senate.

Jason Carter, 34, an Atlanta-area lawyer, is considering a run to fill a seat covering suburban DeKalb County should the incumbent, David Adelman, win confirmation as President Obama's designated ambassador to Singapore.

The seat, which is university heavy -- Emory, among others, is situated there -- also has a substantial Jewish community.

The senior Carter outraged Jewish leaders with his book “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid,” and they strongly criticized the former U.S. president for what appeared to be his likening of Israel's settlement practices to apartheid and seeming to place the brunt of the blame for a lack of peace on Israel.

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/22/1009863/carter-grandsons-race-not-reason-enough-to-apologize

[Shaktimaan]

20. Thanks, that was interesting.

So do you think Carter apologized because of the senate race? He said it wasn't "simply because" of it, leading me to believe that it's probably the main reason. Especially since he really seemed to have flipped on what he always said the title meant, (to my recollection, anyway.) I remember him saying that he wasn't implying Israel was an apartheid state but that apartheid existed in the occupied territories. Now he's saying that it doesn't exist there either, just that it eventually might if peace is not achieved. Wow! Big difference.

But the thing is that most people who really hated the book weren't that mad about the title so much as the book's content. By focusing on the title, Carter was able to chalk the anger up to a misunderstanding of sorts. It's easier to apologize if you're doing it over a miscommunication rather than an opinion.

It seems to me that Carter is trying to smooth things over without really having to retract the bulk of his actual beliefs on the conflict. I mean, let's face it... people weren't upset because they feared people would misunderstand the book's message. They worried that people would get the message, and assume it to be accurate.

Seems like Carter sold out just enough to make people suspicious of his motives but not enough to get an "attaboy" from many Jewish groups.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. How about this?

How come no-one demands that high profile 'supporters' of Israel apologise for criticising the Palestinians?

I remember you claiming rather clumsily the book is dishonest and biased, but I also remember going through my copy of the book and finding that you were at times totally twisting what he'd written. You want to go there again? Let me know and I'll go through the archives and repost what I said then...

[Shaktimaan]

17. Here's the thing V...

You and I happen to disagree on the subject of Carter's book. To be honest I was surprised by your stance. Considering your breadth of knowledge on the conflict I thought it would be obvious to you that Carter was presenting a biased narrative; one that offered a selective history which omitted key events and distorted critical facts. For some reason you saw things differently, though I have no idea how. Regardless of our difference of opinion, I never once twisted what he had written. Though I think I know why you think I did.

I remember you saying in a responses that you couldn't find a passage I quoted. Apparently, Carter edited certain parts of his book after all of the criticism following it's release. So some of the most gruesome examples of Carter's agenda were expunged or altered in later editions of the book. (And I'm assuming you have one of the later editions since that's the only way your copy would differ from mine.)

Setting that one example aside though, I really don't understand how you can consider this book to be an accurate portrayal of the conflict. It's not as though my criticisms are based in an unwillingness to hear a critique of Israel. It is that the critique is inaccurate and unfair. And I am far from the only person who came to this conclusion. I'm not even talking about the usual suspects here, like Abe Foxman. Fourteen members of the Carter Center resigned over this book. Kenneth Stein resigned over the same issues I have with what Carter wrote, and he was the CC's first Executive Director. He helped Carter write his first book on the MidEast and served as his adviser during three trips they made there together. He was one of the CC monitors who oversaw the first Palestinian elections. The guy is not some "Israel, right or wrong" fanatic.

So regardless of whether or not you agree with my standpoint, it is far from invalid. Now I don't really have any desire to revisit this issue with you by going back and listing specifics, having you refute each of them and then rebutting your arguments. This topic has had more than enough pages devoted to it on DU by now.

But since you feel my original argument was so clumsy, I may have done you a disservice by not articulating my position clearly enough. For that purpose I'm going to provide a link to a single article for you, by someone whose writing is not nearly as clumsy as my own, Kenneth Stein. It should be an interesting article for you even if you disagree with his assessment, as he has some privileged insights into Carter, the book and many of the events described in it.

http://www.meforum.org/1633/my-problem-with-jimmy-carters-book

[Shaktimaan]

6. You do realize the hypocrisy in your statement, don't you?

First of all, Carter wasn't criticized for deviating from some "Israel always good -- Palestinians always evil" script. If you look at the main criticisms against his book, they centered around his bias against Israel, as evidenced by the book's content. Many people felt that the conflict was described in an unfair and dishonest way... all legitimate criticisms, even if you disagree with them.

But here you are criticizing other people's decision to do the very thing that Carter did. Namely, criticize it. Carter wrote a book that many found unfair and biased. Naturally they critiqued it. I read the book myself and I wasn't surprised that it attracted such vociferous condemnation. But for some reason you seem to think that the criticism against the book (and its author) is itself unfair. Who cares if Carter got a Nobel Peace Prize. So did Kissenger. Should we refrain from critiquing his past policies because of it? David Duke wrote a book called "Jewish Supremacism." Would it be equally unfair to critique that former politician and his bigoted writing?

Lastly, you are also implying that Carter's apology has something to do with the criticism he's been getting over the book. That he was strongarmed into making an apology. That his reputation was "smeared." OK, we're talking about an ex US president here. People know who he is already. His life is a matter of the public record, it isn't like some group's angry blog will get him fired or something. Exactly how do you think that Carter was smeared? What could anyone have said about him that would cause him to capitulate?

Carter may have been worried about negative publicity during his grandson's office run and thus chosen to make his apology because of that. I sincerely hope not though. You can't write a book like that without understanding that there will be a lot of criticisms made against it. I would really hope that our ex-President is made of stronger stuff than someone who would sell out his beliefs the instant he might face repercussions for them. I mean, David Duke gets critiqued a lot too and you don't see him folding because of it.

[Igel]

4. Scant apology.

"We must not permit criticism for improvement to stigmatize Israel." However, I read that as implicating that he believes his statements were criticism for improvement; if others take that as stigmatization, we must not permit that.

"I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds that may have done so," I i.e., stigmatized Israel. Having already had the implicature that he believes he did not--and who better to judge his meaning--it means that he's condemned their misinterpretation, but apologizes for any misunderstandings other have.

It's the usual kind of apology that not only admits no fault, but suggests that the problem is with others.

However, my many standards it's abject groveling. At least he didn't openly insult anybody or say that the only reason not killing or hurting others is wrong is that it makes him look bad.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Interesting. I read it the same way as you...

"We must not permit criticism for improvement to stigmatize Israel." However, I read that as implicating that he believes his statements were criticism for improvement; if others take that as stigmatization, we must not permit that.

"I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds that may have done so," I i.e., stigmatized Israel. Having already had the implicature that he believes he did not--and who better to judge his meaning--it means that he's condemned their misinterpretation, but apologizes for any misunderstandings other have.

I think it's ridiculous that people seem to think Israel needs to be apologised to for being criticised.

[azurnoir]

5. Also this week Jimmy Carter: Gaza must be rebuilt now

It is generally recognised that the Middle East peace process is in the doldrums, almost moribund. Israeli settlement expansion within Palestine continues, and PLO leaders refuse to join in renewed peace talks without a settlement freeze, knowing that no Arab or Islamic nation will accept any comprehensive agreement while Israel retains control of East Jerusalem.

US objections have impeded Egyptian efforts to resolve differences between Hamas and Fatah that could lead to 2010 elections. With this stalemate, PLO leaders have decided that President Mahmoud Abbas will continue in power until elections can be held – a decision condemned by many Palestinians.

Even though Syria and Israel under the Olmert government had almost reached an agreement with Turkey's help, the current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, rejects Turkey as a mediator on the Golan Heights. No apparent alternative is in the offing.

The UN general assembly approved a report issued by its human rights council that called on Israel and the Palestinians to investigate charges of war crimes during the recent Gaza war, but positive responses seem unlikely.

In summary: UN resolutions, Geneva conventions, previous agreements between Israelis and Palestinians, the Arab peace initiative, and official policies of the US and other nations are all being ignored. In the meantime, the demolition of Arab houses, expansion of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and Palestinian recalcitrance threaten any real prospect for peace.

Of more immediate concern, those under siege in Gaza face another winter of intense personal suffering. I visited Gaza after the devastating January war and observed homeless people huddling in makeshift tents, under plastic sheets, or in caves dug into the debris of their former homes. Despite offers by Palestinian leaders and international agencies to guarantee no use of imported materials for even defensive military purposes, cement, lumber, and panes of glass are not being permitted to pass entry points into Gaza. The US and other nations have accepted this abhorrent situation without forceful corrective action.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/19/gaza-rebuilt-peace-process-suffering

[Shaktimaan]

9. Interesting response from the comments sect. of the Guardian.

This was in response to a comment about Egypt's responsibilities towards Gaza. I found it a welcome departure from the stock responses of:

"Israel's occupying Gaza therefore they are responsible for the Gazans' well being" or...
"Israel broke it, not Egypt" or...
"America and Israel are surely forcing Egypt to keep the border closed" or...
"Egypt shares a border also. So despite Israel's closure of all the sea routes, any air possibilities and half the land options, this is still all Egypt's responsibility."

---------

No need to accept simplistic ideas of why Egypt doesn't do more to supply Gaza.
American pressure is certainly a factor, and so too is the Egyptians' fear of Hamas and its links with the MB.
But it is more complex even than that. Here is a lucid para from a Reuter's report

"So why does Egypt continue to restrict access to Gaza?

THE BURDEN OF GAZA -- Cairo believes that if it left the Egypt-Gaza border wide open Israel would wash its hands of responsibility for ensuring the Gazans receive enough to keep them alive -- food, water, medical supplies, electricity and other essentials. Egyptian diplomats say that Israel would seal the border with Gaza on its side, diverting all trade and traffic through Egypt.

The burden would be a drain on Egyptian resources and the authorities might find it hard to prevent an influx of Gaza Palestinians seeking work and housing.

In one worst-case scenario Israel might hold Egypt responsible for any attacks on Israel launched from Gaza, forcing Egypt to act as Gaza policeman -- a role fraught with danger. Egypt's presence in Gaza between 1948 and 1967, and its inability to impose full control on Palestinian groups there, helped drag Egypt into war with Israel in 1956 and 1967."

Politically this makes perfect sense. And also indicates one whole often neglected side of the I/P conflict - viz the contribution of the Arab states to keeping the Palestinians in a boxed up, vulnerable situation...The idea that this is simple pressure from the US is utterly childish and goes with the silly Manichean view of the conflict (Big bad nasty US/Zionists v. innocent Arabs).

It is much more to do with the fact that neither Egypt nor Jordan wants practical responsibility for coping with the situation and even, from a pan-Arabist view, many have precisely and rather hypocritically not wanted to take responsibility even partially because they see this as a step to admission of defeat by Israel...possibly even leading in practice to integration of Gaza into Egypt and part of the West bank into Jordan...

Even at the level of popular opinion (not the authoritarian governments) , pro-Palestinian sympathies in the wider Arab public tend to stop short of willingness to make sacrifices of prejudice or interest.


---------


Makes sense, doesn't it? Of course it doesn't offer much in the way of solutions. But then what really does these days?

[pelsar]

10. wow, not just geographical understanding, but political motivations as well

relatively rare to read an article that actually starts off with the egyptian/gaza border as a geographical fact, and that israel has not "hermetically sealed off gaza-or some variation of that. And then goes on to explain why egypt keeps the traffic to and from Gaza very limited. More so it even expands the explanation to include why the arab states are not pressuring Egypt...

of course what is lacking is an explanation as to:
why aren't the western govts, UN, and Palestinians friends etc pressuring egypt to open up its border-or do they also have an agenda at the expense of the gazans?

[Shaktimaan]

11. I know... wasn't it a good article.

I would assume that some of the western govts, particularly the US, have their own pretty clear agenda vis a vis Hamas. As for the UN, I would suggest that it has all but ignored Egypt for the same reasons that egypt itself is doing its best to disengage with gaza. The narrative that helps the arab states the most is the "bad israel" one. There is no upside to pressuring egypt to provide relief from the arab world's perspective. As for Palestinian friends, I'm not sure who you're talking about. Even those groups committed to helping the palestinians stand to gain little by straying from the anti-israel narrative. Hamas themselves haven't even been all that vocal about criticizing egypt as opposed to israel, have they?

[ConsAreLiars]

13. The "blame Egypt" BS from those zealots who wish to deny Israel's human rights violations

and is both transparent and pathetic. Israel Is the occupying power. Its governments have ordered its military to blockade, massacre, assassinate, starve, destroy homes, shoot children, firebomb, deny medicine and rebuilding supplies, and oppress in every way the Palestinians.

"Blame Egypt" for the suffering inflicted on the Palestinian people? Sadly, that might work with your "Rah!Rah!KillEmAll!" gang, but I don't think it will go much further.

[Shaktimaan]

15. I don't understand what you're referring to.

Did you think that the article I posted had a "blame Egypt" message? Or insinuated that Egypt was responsible for the suffering of Palestinians?

Sadly, that might work with your "Rah!Rah!KillEmAll!" gang, but I don't think it will go much further.

I have a "Rah!Rah!KillEmAll!" gang? News to me. But I'm surprised that a gang with a name like that would even bother assigning blame for the suffering of a group that they're actively lobbying to kill.

Figuring out what portion of the Palestinians' suffering can be directly attributed to Egypt doesn't really interest me. The reality is that Egypt has a very real opportunity to help alleviate that suffering. So then, regardless of whose fault any of this is, I think it is a valid question to ask why Egypt has chosen to withhold its help. (And now they're building a wall, which is actually a proactive step to refuse help and disengage from Gaza.)

I'm not making a moral judgment here or insinuating that Egypt SHOULD be doing this thing or that thing. I just think it's interesting to learn the motivations for its actions.

[azurnoir]

16. A question seeing as how

you've managed to build a subthread out of a comment in a link but

where do think Egypt got the money and engineering assistance to build this wall?

[Shaktimaan]

18. I don't know. From Carter?

No, seriously... unless you have reason to believe differently I'm going to assume it was from Egypt. What, you don't think Egypt possesses the resources to plan and build a wall on their own? For cereal?

But let's set the conspiracy theories aside for a second and just pretend it was actually funded by America. Or Israel. (Whichever you think would be worse.) What difference would it make? Egypt clearly isn't making their decision to build this wall because they're getting it for free. Who cares if Israel's paying for it, the thing wouldn't be getting built unless Egypt wanted it.

Even if you managed to prove that Israel planned, paid for and painted the wall you aren't proving anything except that Israel and Egypt both think the wall would benefit them. The more interesting thing is exploring why Egypt sees the wall as beneficial. Not whether Israel paid for it, or even approves of it.

[azurnoir]

19. Didn't Livni's 23rd hour visit to DC

have something to do with Egyptian security I also remember something about the Army Corp of Engineers being somehow involved I have to look up threads from the time it was about 1/15/09

edited to add links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=249392#249593

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=248674

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=248094#248475

http://www.correntewire.com/us_army_corps_engineers_egypt

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091222/FOREIGN/712219880/1140/foreign

there is not anything specific to a wall however Egypt got the money from somewhere this wall is not just a fence it penetrates some depth into the ground, it should noted that Egypt os restricting the construction to its side of the border

[Shaktimaan]

21. Oh, I have no idea.

But unless you believe that Israel or America (or whoever) is somehow forcing (or bribing) Egypt to revise its policy on Gaza, then isn't it basically irrelevant?

I mean, it seems to me that Egypt has a multitude of good reasons for building that wall. Since their motivations for doing so seem pretty clear (and are legitimate to boot) isn't it sort of dodging the issue to try blaming it on Israel/America? This one thing is sort of like a microcosm of the conflict in general. While it looks like everyone is just being irrational assholes, most of the entities involved have complex and legitimate grievances. Most of the time though, those concerns get ignored in favor of hewing to much simpler narratives. Those narratives have the benefit of being easily understood and have clear-cut good guys and bad guys. The problem with them is that unless the underlying issues are dealt with, nothing will ever change. (Except perhaps the narratives themselves, which would be altered to conform to whatever the new reality is.)

It doesn't matter who paid for the thing because all of the issues discussed in that article still exist. Even if there wasn't money for a wall those issues would still be affecting Egyptian policy decisions.

[azurnoir]

22. Sorry I added a bunch of links to comment #19

and while there is nothing specific mentioned as to a wall there is mention of ground penetrating radar being used with the help of the US Corp of Engineers

[azurnoir]

23. What is the issue in your mind then?

The standard narrative has been Israel good-Hamas (Palestinians) bad as to the wall it self if you read the links the Egyptian wall may well have been part of the OCL cease fire deal

[Shaktimaan]

24. That's one of the narratives.

It certainly isn't the one that's told in Egypt though, which is more that Israel is the bad guy and totally responsible for the Palestinians' plight. There's no standard narrative. It all depends on who you're talking to and where you are.

If the wall was part of a deal brokered by Israel then it is essentially Israel's decision to build the wall and the issue reverts back to being about Hamas and Israel. But if it isn't something like that then the issue is about Egypt and Gaza. It complicates the narratives because they are almost always very simple. The reality is that this is, and always was, a regional conflict. (Face it. Israel acting alone couldn't have brought the Palestinians to such a sorry state. It took everyone screwing them over for 100 years to get where they are.)

That post I copied above talks about the specific reasons Egypt would probably want to disengage from Gaza as much as possible. It's not like any of them are easily fixable or anything. There's probably not much anyone can do about it. Gaza is a problem for anyone who might be forced to deal with it... no one wants that headache.

At the end of the day, neither country is really obligated to do much to help Gaza and when helping costs more than it's worth then even "friends" like Egypt will put up a wall to avoid the problems.