Why Is Nobody Listening to Jimmy Carter?

[zanejohnson]

anyone who doesnt understand why using drones to kill any human being whatsoever is a violation of human rights, will never understand...

 

[Jhhnn]

anyone who doesnt understand why using drones to kill any human being whatsoever is a violation of human rights, will never understand...

I don't think that's true. Drones can be used as close quarters air support in actual combat, but that's not their current role.

 

[KK]

Why, because he is on Obama's case, and the media is in bed with Obama. Had Jimmy criticized a republican, it would have made the news.

 

[woodie1]

Why, because he is on Obama's case, and the media is in bed with Obama. Had Jimmy criticized a republican, it would have made the news.

Best explanation so far.

 

[sandorski]

Carter has been the most forward thinking President of the last 4 decades. Sadly, he still seems to be the most forward thinking Politician(former) in the US.

 

[rockyct]

Why, because he is on Obama's case, and the media is in bed with Obama. Had Jimmy criticized a republican, it would have made the news.

Not really. He was pretty much kept up in the attic during Bush's terms except when he was brought out during the conventions because people would begin to ask questions if they didn't let him out.

 

[woolfe9999]

Oh, please. Jimmy has been shunned by the media ever since his book was published, ever since he was critical of Israel & her American supporters. His criticism of the Bush/ Obama indefinite detention/ killer drone policy doesn't change that except for the worse.

Contrary to what you might hear, SS isn't the third rail of American politics- that dubious distinction goes to Israel. It's one of the few areas where Ron Paul actually makes sense, something his supporters manage to overlook each & every chance they get.

You appear to believe that the American media is in Israel's pocket. Rather than disputing this as a factual matter, I'll bypass that for the moment and instead ask you why you think Israel is able to have such a hold on our media?

 

[Nebor]

anyone who doesnt understand why using drones to kill any human being whatsoever is a violation of human rights, will never understand...

Well at least you've given up on changing people's minds easily.

We'll just continue to talk the drones onto targets then.

-With Love from the Afghanistan\Pakistan Border

 

[cybrsage]

Oh, please. Jimmy has been shunned by the media ever since his book was published, ever since he was critical of Israel & her American supporters.

Rightfully so, since he filled those books with lies and false allegations. They show a severe lack of understanding of what apartheid is - and actually minimized real apartheid.

It is like when say GitMo is a gulag...yeah, those who were in the real gulags wish their prisons had been as comfy as GitMo. Saying the two are alike minimizes the horrors that were the gulags.

 

[Jhhnn]

You appear to believe that the American media is in Israel's pocket. Rather than disputing this as a factual matter, I'll bypass that for the moment and instead ask you why you think Israel is able to have such a hold on our media?

I think we need to discuss it as a factual matter if we're to discuss it at all. Either US media is biased in favor of Israel or it's not. If it is, then reasons for such are valid concerns. If it's not, then the whole exercise of "Why?" is pointless, an attempt to create a rhetorical trap.

 

[Pens1566]

Carter has been the most forward thinking President of the last 4 decades. Sadly, he still seems to be the most forward thinking Politician(former) in the US.

This ^. If we'd listened to him during his administration, we wouldn't have nearly the problem we currently do with dependence on foreign energy sources.

 

[Jhhnn]

Rightfully so, since he filled those books with lies and false allegations. They show a severe lack of understanding of what apartheid is - and actually minimized real apartheid.

It is like when say GitMo is a gulag...yeah, those who were in the real gulags wish their prisons had been as comfy as GitMo. Saying the two are alike minimizes the horrors that were the gulags.

It's easy enough to accuse him of lying w/o being specific, a standard propaganda technique. Quote him, dispute what he actually said, rather than waving around innuendo as fact.

Gitmo is a gulag in the sense of the procedural methods employed to imprison people there, which was Carter's point entirely. If Gitmo is so cushy, perhaps you'd care to spend the rest of your life there, never charged or convicted of any crime at all, rather than assigning that role to others on the basis of mere assurances by our govt. You should try it- really. I'm quite sure that you're really a Terrarist! & that you'll eventually confess under the proper interrogation techniques, which, in circular fashion, will serve as justification for locking you up in the first place.

It's become the American Way, borrowed from our Israeli friends.

 

[woolfe9999]

I think we need to discuss it as a factual matter if we're to discuss it at all. Either US media is biased in favor of Israel or it's not. If it is, then reasons for such are valid concerns. If it's not, then the whole exercise of "Why?" is pointless, an attempt to create a rhetorical trap.

The problem is that you have asserted that the American media is in Israel's pocket without submitting any evidence of such. It was a bald assertion. In any event, it's your assertion. I don't need to disprove it until you've supplied something credible to back it up. Since proving it one way or the other requires a lot of content examination, I thought we'd approach it first by examining whether you had a theory as to how such a thing could even be possible.

Israel is a nation of roughly 6 million population, half way across the globe. The American media is an industry whose output is larger than Israel's entire economy. Last I checked, our media is corporate and they are accountable to their shareholders. It's why, by and large, the media does not have the liberal bias that conservatives claim it has. You're making an extraordinary claim. You could at least provide a theory. If not, then provide solid proof.

 

[dank69]

Why, because he is on Obama's case, and the media is in bed with Obama. Had Jimmy criticized a republican, it would have made the news.

Best explanation so far.

Except it did make the news. Just goes to show you are both ignorant.

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem is that you have asserted that the American media is in Israel's pocket without submitting any evidence of such. It was a bald assertion. In any event, it's your assertion. I don't need to disprove it until you've supplied something credible to back it up. Since proving it one way or the other requires a lot of content examination, I thought we'd approach it first by examining whether you had a theory as to how such a thing could even be possible.

Israel is a nation of roughly 6 million population, half way across the globe. The American media is an industry whose output is larger than Israel's entire economy. Last I checked, our media is corporate and they are accountable to their shareholders. It's why, by and large, the media does not have the liberal bias that conservatives claim it has. You're making an extraordinary claim. You could at least provide a theory. If not, then provide solid proof.

First off, I object to characterization of what I said when what I said is right there in black & white. You attempt to characterize bias as being economic in nature by offering that I claimed the American media is "in Israel's pocket". It's not- it's emotional, and it's an issue of self defense for media figures. If they can't say something nice about Israel, then they'll generally say nothing to avoid the well organized tar brush attacks from the Israeli lobby, AIPAC being regarded as the second most powerful lobby in the country, right behind the NRA.

Their goal, and that of allied organized groups, is to create favorable sentiment towards Israel in this country, obviously via the Media & Congress. To claim that they haven't succeeded, that they haven't fostered & created *bias*, is absurd.

There is no organized group or groups of similar clout on the other side of the issues in this country, and we both know it. So it falls to individuals like Carter to present alternate views, which are attacked quite vociferously & viciously, regardless of the truth of the matter. That's how bias works.

 

[Ninjahedge]

The media is in Israel's pocket. Most of the media has very strong Jewish ties, and NOBODY is allowed to strongly criticize them for just about anything.

They do nothing wrong, no matter how badly they do it.


The key here is not to count the stories on a google search, but try to remember the last time you heard something being said about Israel criticizing their means and methods. It is very rare, although they are quite an emphatic political entity.

Also, look at how much money the US sends over to support its ally... one that has done many things the US has recently objected to, but still keeps funding.

I am not saying Israel is evil, or that I disagree with all of its policies, but the radical militaristic exclusionary nature of many of its policies with little to no criticism from our own politicians or media makes you aware of the imbalance.


In the pocket? Maybe not, but ignoring the definite influence is equally naive.

 

[woolfe9999]

First off, I object to characterization of what I said when what I said is right there in black & white. You attempt to characterize bias as being economic in nature by offering that I claimed the American media is "in Israel's pocket". It's not- it's emotional, and it's an issue of self defense for media figures. If they can't say something nice about Israel, then they'll generally say nothing to avoid the well organized tar brush attacks from the Israeli lobby, AIPAC being regarded as the second most powerful lobby in the country, right behind the NRA.

Their goal, and that of allied organized groups, is to create favorable sentiment towards Israel in this country, obviously via the Media & Congress. To claim that they haven't succeeded, that they haven't fostered & created *bias*, is absurd.

There is no organized group or groups of similar clout on the other side of the issues in this country, and we both know it. So it falls to individuals like Carter to present alternate views, which are attacked quite vociferously & viciously, regardless of the truth of the matter. That's how bias works.

I think what you're doing here is claiming that because Israel has many vocal supporters in the US who will criticize those with anti-Israel opinions, that somehow those opinions are being silenced. They are not. They are being criticized.

Case in point, when Carter published his book in 2006. He was heavily criticized for it, and on substantive grounds, especially for its factual inaccuracies. Carter whined about being criticized by "Jewish groups" and offered virtually no substantive defense of the particulars. This was an extremely visible and very *public* debate. The appearance of uneven volume was because the critics were specific, while Carter and those defending him merely whined about being persecuted by the Jews and their confederates. You're playing back that broken record here again, conflating criticism of speech with silencing of speech.

This isn't a lack of organization on the part of Israel's detractors. It's a lack of substance. Try defending Carter's opinions on their merits instead of worrying about how many people criticize him and who those people are. This is all free speech.

As for a so-called media blackout of Carter, it does not exist. Those 2 links I supplied are the tip of the ice berg on just this one issue of Carter criticizing Obama's foreign policy and you know I can supply many, many more. Many more still pertaining to Carter's views on Israel.

Nor is the Israel/Palestine conflict in general being blacked out. That conflict receives more attention in proportion to the number of deaths involved than any in the past half century. You won't find 1 article about Darfur for every 10 about Israel, and that's if measured during the time in which both conflicts were concurrent. That's the US media. In Europe, it's twice as much. The obsession with that conflict is, frankly, difficult to explain. It isn't that it's not important; it's the ignoring or downplaying of problems elsewhere. Just look at P&N as a tiny microcosm. How many Israel threads do we get per day, per week here? This obsession is at all levels, from media down to rank and file.

- wolf

 

[blankslate]

Because Reagan successfully made Carter a one-term president and therefore a failure to most of the American people.

For you conspiracy fans.

 

[cybrsage]

It's easy enough to accuse him of lying w/o being specific, a standard propaganda technique. Quote him, dispute what he actually said, rather than waving around innuendo as fact.

That is the purpose of his book. But here you go:

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said in remarks broadcast Monday that Israeli policy in the West Bank represented instances of apartheid worse even that those that once held sway in South Africa.
Carter's comments were broadcast on Israel Radio, which played a tape of an interview with the ex-president, but did not specify to whom Carter was speaking. But has made similar remarks in recent interviews, such as one to CBC television.
"When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200-or-so settlements with each other, with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/jimmy-c...d-policies-worse-than-south-africa-s-1.206865

Gitmo is a gulag in the sense...

No, Gitmo is as close to being a gulag as a woman slapping you is to having a barbarian warrior rip off your face with his fingers and pull your lungs out through the gaping wound that was once your head.

 

[Jhhnn]

That is the purpose of his book. But here you go:


http://www.haaretz.com/news/jimmy-c...d-policies-worse-than-south-africa-s-1.206865

And that's inaccurate in what way?

No, Gitmo is as close to being a gulag as a woman slapping you is to having a barbarian warrior rip off your face with his fingers and pull your lungs out through the gaping wound that was once your head.

Dance, Cybr! Dance! See how well you can miss the point! Be deliberately obtuse, following your usual MO.

Coming up next? Another strawman, obviously.

 

[Jhhnn]

This isn't a lack of organization on the part of Israel's detractors. It's a lack of substance. Try defending Carter's opinions on their merits instead of worrying about how many people criticize him and who those people are. This is all free speech.

Name any pro palestinian organization with the clout of AIPAC, one that will figuratively rip your face off with thousands of emails & dozens of media pundits attacking if you say anything bad about the pals.

The rest of it? Merely a demonstration of the ubiquity of pro Israeli bias, which you exhibit yourself. AIPAC is highly successful, your own attitude being an example of it.

 

[woolfe9999]

Name any pro palestinian organization with the clout of AIPAC, one that will figuratively rip your face off with thousands of emails & dozens of media pundits attacking if you say anything bad about the pals.

The rest of it? Merely a demonstration of the ubiquity of pro Israeli bias, which you exhibit yourself. AIPAC is highly successful, your own attitude being an example of it.

Wow, that's truly pathetic. There is literally no substance here at all. I really thought you'd do better than naked allegations of bias and repeating the same fallacy of conflating criticism with de facto censorship. Once again reinforcing the obvious, that critics of Israel do not want to be challenged, that they'd rather focus on who is challenging them than defending their arguments. Who the fuck cares how many people are criticizing you much less who those people are? Arguments stand or fall on their merits. Try defending yours instead of attacking the critic.

 

[cybrsage]

And that's inaccurate in what way?

In that is it both not apartheid and not worse than what South Africa was doing. You know, what I already said.

Dance, Cybr! Dance! See how well you can miss the point! Be deliberately obtuse, following your usual MO.

Coming up next? Another strawman, obviously.

A campfire is hot and so is the Sun. However, saying a fire and the sun are both basically the same thing because both are hot is stupid. Gitmo is as much a gulag as a campfire is the Sun.

I sense you are one of those who say gitmo is a gulag. Am I right? How about we find out what people who were actually in the gulags have to say about it:

People who were actually in the gulag criticise Amnesty:

• Pavel Litvinov: "By any standard, Guantanamo and similar American-run prisons elsewhere do not resemble, in their conditions of detention or their scale, the concentration camp system that was at the core of a totalitarian communist system."
• Natan Sharanksy describes Amnesty's gulag analogy as "typical, unfortunately".

http://markhumphrys.com/human.rights.groups.html

You can read an entire article about it, written by Litvinov, here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701218.html

Some snippits:

There is ample reason for Amnesty to be critical of certain U.S. actions. But by using hyperbole and muddling the difference between repressive regimes and the imperfections of democracy, Amnesty's spokesmen put its authority at risk. U.S. human rights violations seem almost trifling in comparison with those committed by Cuba, South Korea, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.


Words are important. When Amnesty spokesmen use the word "gulag" to describe U.S. human rights violations, they allow the Bush administration to dismiss justified criticism and undermine Amnesty's credibility. Amnesty International is too valuable to let it be hijacked by politically biased leaders.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Wolf,

In all fairness, you seem to come off reasonable, but then you describe Carter's defense of his own criticized work as "whining".

You are showing a bit of bias there simply in your choice of words.

Please, quote the "whine" and quote the passage that was criticizing him. So many of these detractions are heresay and conjecture that they bear little weight on an actual scale, but still tip opinion very strongly in one direction or another.

Do not get me wrong, I am not calling you out to "prove it", but if you want to have a serious conversation about this, context and source material is vital.

 

[woolfe9999]

Wolf,

In all fairness, you seem to come off reasonable, but then you describe Carter's defense of his own criticized work as "whining".

You are showing a bit of bias there simply in your choice of words.

Please, quote the "whine" and quote the passage that was criticizing him. So many of these detractions are heresay and conjecture that they bear little weight on an actual scale, but still tip opinion very strongly in one direction or another.

Do not get me wrong, I am not calling you out to "prove it", but if you want to have a serious conversation about this, context and source material is vital.

Sure thing. As background, after Carter published his book, there were numerous critical reviews of that book from various quarters. The reviewers did not accuse him of anti-semitism by the way. They accused him of various factual inaccuracies, and of employing a variety of double standards in his criticisms of Israel. I can link any number of them if you like. Here was Carter's response on the record to these dozens of pages of criticisms:

Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-Semitic", and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions. A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."

Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark — that I should be tried for treason — and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.

In this response, he catalogs who was criticizing him, making sure to first inform the listener that his critics were mostly Jews. Because that is what mattered, not the actual points they made. We know this, because he responded to literally zero of those points. Nada. His second paragraph is then an attempt to substitute argument ad populum for a real defense of his book on its merits. These critics had claimed he got many of his facts wrong, and even may have deliberately falsified some of them.

For example, Ken Stein, a former long time middle east policy adviser of Carter's, said Carter misrepresented a conversation that he had with Syria's Assad in 1990, a conversation that Stein was physically present at, and about which he made contemporaneous handwritten notes. These kinds of allegations required a response beyond stating that he was being criticized by Jews and that lots of people liked his book.

Carter also refused to debate Dershowitz over the book. Refused to debate anyone over it. This in spite of the fact that he wrote in the book that its purpose was to stimulate public debate. He did make some other comments in response to his critics in addition to what's above, mostly in the vein of "I was there. I have toured the occupied territories. My critics do not know what is going on." Very little has ever been said about the particulars of these criticisms.

- wolf