so when will carter take back words insulting israel

So When Will Carter Take Back Words Insulting Israel?

The Jerusalem Post reports that former President Jimmy Carter asked the Jewish community to forgive him for ‘any stigma he may have caused Israel.’

In a letter released to JTA, Carter writes that “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.” He meaningfully adds: “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.”

“Al Het” refers to, the JPost explains, “to the Yom Kippur prayer asking God forgiveness for sins committed against Him. In modern Hebrew it refers to any plea for forgiveness.”

How kind of him. It’s always great when people apologize for harming others, isn’t it?

It’s remarkable, however, that he only implies he “may have” hurt Israel. There’s nothing “may have” about it. He compares Israel to the Apartheid of South Africa. Time after time, Carter treats Israel’s enemies Hamas as if they’re freedom fighters instead of terrorists. He emboldens them, he encourages them. And all Israel gets is one “I’m sorry if I may have stigmatized you.”

Nice try, but it isn’t enough.

How about you distancing yourself from your book, Mr. Carter? How about you apologizing for writing it and doing so publicly, on TV, for everybody to see? And how about you finally calling Hamas what it is: a terrorist organization, made up of thousands of radicals who dream of perpetrating a second holocaust?

Until he does, I don’t quite see why we should take this ‘apology’ serious.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine


  1. Todd

    December 24th, 2009 at 18:56

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #1

    “He compares Israel to the Apartheid of South Africa.”

    I’m willing to say the same thing about the status of gay people in America and Uganda, or about the lapps in Sweden/Finland. Non-issue.

    “Time after time, Carter treats Israel’s enemies Hamas as if they’re freedom fighters instead of terrorists. He emboldens them, he encourages them.”

    That is, he doesn’t say everything your crowd wants him to say about Hamas. Sorry, there are few people who have the authority to say who give fair assessments about the region. Both sides have their political correctness – I don’t consider Carter to be a good voice regarding the region, but condemning Carter as giving verbal aid and comfort to Hamas seems out of the blue, arbitrary. Left-wing politicians in Israel such as Yossi Beilin said that Carter’s book raised contentions Israeli citzens have – I wonder how you’re going to be able to call them biased or pro-Hamas.

    “How about you distancing yourself from your book, Mr. Carter?”

    Gutsy demand. “Apartheid” is a loaded word. So is “genocide”, or “terrorists”. Yet, I am willing to extend those two latter descriptions with regards to Hamas, because they can be said to fit the bill.

    If you are willing to call abortions “murder” or a Hamas triumph (as Hamas intends it, in words and actions) as a “second holocaust), you’ll have to deal with other people calling Israel’s current behavior as comporting with the accepted definition of Apartheid. Deal with it.

    “And how about you finally calling Hamas what it is: a terrorist organization, made up of thousands of radicals who dream of perpetrating a second holocaust?”

    I think he’ll say that the day you are willing to condemn Israel’s actions with regards to Palestine as comparable to Apartheid. You want concessions with no performance of your own – not likely.


  2. Interested

    December 27th, 2009 at 06:21

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #2

    Ahh good ole Carter. Just another in a string of Lefties mistakes.

    you’ll have to deal with other people calling Israel’s current behavior as comporting with the accepted definition of Apartheid. Deal with i

    and better

    I think he’ll say that the day you are willing to condemn Israel’s actions with regards to Palestine as comparable to Apartheid. You want concessions with no performance of your own – not likely.

    Reality doesn’t make one take both sides of a view. Following your logic, a murderer or rapist has a perfectly right view in their own context. Are you prepared to deal with that as well? (Foil’s in the top left drawer).


  3. Todd

    December 27th, 2009 at 11:23

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #3

    “Following your logic, a murderer or rapist has a perfectly right view in their own context.”

    You mean “might makes right”? That subjectivity makes everything morally neutral? Is that what I advocated? How?

    You’re too busy being a smarmy, partisan pedant to actually explain what you think I did wrong.

    If Hamas wants a second holocaust, Israel wants Apartheid. In fact, the latter actor has more means to pursue its goal, as evidenced by history. Israel has been far better at using different forms of warfare to politically and socially ostracize and dominate Palestinians than Hamas has been at “eradicating” Jews. Actions speak louder than words.


  4. Interested

    December 27th, 2009 at 14:00

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #4

    You mean “might makes right”? That subjectivity makes everything morally neutral? Is that what I advocated? How?

    You’re too busy being a smarmy, partisan pedant to actually explain what you think I did wrong.

    I’d suggest you read your logic.


  5. Todd

    December 27th, 2009 at 15:18

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #5

    “I’d suggest you read your logic.”

    I’d say you should give up lecturing people you disagree with until you are willing to show some good faith and actually explain what the heck you are whining about.


  6. Tully

    December 27th, 2009 at 17:55

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #6

    This is of course the same Jimmy Carter who has called Israel’s insistence on its right to exist as a Jewish state “an obstacle to peace,” a standard he has notably not applied to officially Muslim states such as Israeli neighbors Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia … or the Palestinian National Authority.


  7. Todd

    December 27th, 2009 at 20:19

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #7

    “This is of course the same Jimmy Carter who has called Israel’s insistence on its right to exist as a Jewish state “an obstacle to peace,””

    Ethnicity is not the same as official religion.


  8. Doomed

    December 27th, 2009 at 22:23

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #8

    Ethnicity is not the same as official religion.

    Jewish is not a religion.

    The Jews practice Judaism….Not Jewishness.


  9. Todd

    December 27th, 2009 at 23:01

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #9

    @Doomed

    That’s

    That’s information that is not in any way shape or form incompatible with what I said.


  10. Tully

    December 28th, 2009 at 00:15

    Doomed: Did you expect anything other than reflexive apologetics based on pretzel-bending semantics out of Todd? Good luck with that. He’ll stick with the “Wanting Israel destroyed and its people annihilated is not the same thing as being anti-Semitic” dodge, I’m sure.


  11. Todd

    December 28th, 2009 at 00:39

    “Doomed: Did you expect anything other than reflexive apologetics based on pretzel-bending semantics out of Todd? Good luck with that. He’ll stick with the “Wanting Israel destroyed and its people annihilated is not the same thing as being anti-Semitic” dodge, I’m sure.”

    I think you’ve mistaken me for one of the convenient figurines you stash away for the purpose of bandying them about on the puppet stage of your mind. I’ve said no such thing as “Hamas hasn’t provided reasons to mistrust its desire to treat Israeli citizens humanely”. All I’ve said is that if one looks at history, Israel is far more capable of supressing (and killing) Palestinians than Hamas is at killing Israeli civilians. It’s war, and there is a great disparity in capacity and results regarding the use of martial pressure to bring about desired political results (why war is waged).

    Therefore, one would be a complete… nitwit (I’m being diplomatic in my choice of words) to want to use harsh, darkly resonating words against Hamas but not against Israel. If we want to use “holocaust” in the debate, let us not resort to double standards and make “Apartheid” unacceptable.

    Are you going to stop pretending I’m part of your menagerie of lazy cutouts, or are you going to play ball and read my posts? Good faith and attention are commodities, and I ain’t charitable.


  12. Interested

    December 28th, 2009 at 08:38

    Are you going to stop pretending I’m part of your menagerie of lazy cutouts, or are you going to play ball and read my posts? Good faith and attention are commodities, and I ain’t charitable.

    I’d say the answer is when you demonstrate otherwise.

    Tell you what Todd, tell me where exactly the Country of Palestine lands on the map.


  13. Todd

    December 28th, 2009 at 14:32

    “I’d say the answer is when you demonstrate otherwise.”

    You never explained how you inferred constestable and illogical statements from my post yet demand that I change my ways. I think there is something amiss with you, behaviorally, if you are dense enough to think I would placate you.

    “Tell you what Todd, tell me where exactly the Country of Palestine lands on the map.”

    I can’t even point out Israel properly, because for some reason its territory has shifted so much over the years. When people say Hamas must recognize Israel’s right to exist, I always answer “Just which Israel are you talking about? What vintage?”

    This is once again self-satisfied pedantry on your part – whether there is a Palestine or not doesn’t change the fact that all of my positions are morally solid and do not ignore the reality of the people who live in the region. There is no wrangling of words or chest-thumping over minute details that can change that. You are simply playing Calvinball – trying to change the rules of what an argument must contain or take into account to be valid.

    Nothing you have said so far has been of use to me or the issue. Nothing has been substantial enough to require me to use anything but what I already know – your contentions are so inane I can just employ thoughts I already have had, knowledge I’ve absorbed long ago. You are too busy being contrarian to think well.




NOTE: PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to basic standards of civility and topicality.

We reserve the right to edit or delete comments which are in our judgment egregiously and
gratuitously uncivil. We also reserve the right to delete all comments which are off-topic,
including those that grossly distort the topic of the post or serve merely as vehicles for
spamming.

Complaints or concerns about deleted or edited comments should be sent by email only. Complaints
posted as comments will be deleted.

Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate the comments policy may be banned.