This One’s for Dusty: How Carter Errs
January 24th, 2007 | by Craig R. Harmon |CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America publishes what it purports to be A Comprehensive Collection of Jimmy Carter’s Errors.
Not being a Middle Eastern Studies expert or an expert on the history of the Israeli-Arab conflicts, I don’t present this as established fact but as one group’s public statement of the facts in distinction from the errors that are said to be contained in Carter’s most recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. The reason for my presenting them stems from conversation that Dusty and I had over Alan Dershowitz and his admittedly juvenile taunting of Carter that amounted to little more than ad hominem attack. Therein Dusty asked if anyone had a more substantive detailing of the supposed weaknesses contained in the book.
This article fills that request.
21 Responses to “This One’s for Dusty: How Carter Errs”
By Jersey McJones on Jan 24, 2007 | Reply
Craig, that “list” is a pile of specious, selective, semantic crap. I wouldn’t wipe my ass with it.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 24, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
I don’t pretend to know who’s right but the complaints are hardly semantic crap. If CAMERA is right, there are serious factual problems throughout the book, factual problems that all seem to go in one direction: making Israel out to be worse than she is. Odd, that.
Of course it’s selective. It selected what CAMERA views as serious errors of fact. What on earth would you expect? They don’t take issue with every statement in the book.
As for specious, having the appearance of truth while in actuality being false, you’ll have to fill in the blanks for me because I don’t know. Which of their complaints appear true but are false? Actually, they do a good job of documenting their complaints. You’ll have to do better than CALLING them specious. You’ll have to document CAMERA’s falsehoods.
By Jersey McJones on Jan 24, 2007 | Reply
No, Craig. Again, CAMERA is making the accusations, not Carter. THEY have to prove the falsehoods. Show me one factual falsehood that they point out that isn’t just silly, specious crap.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 24, 2007 | Reply
Uh uh. None of them are silly, specious crap. All of them are factual falsehoods, if CAMERA is correct. They provide documentation. What’s the problem? Their documentation is either crap or correct. If the documentation is correct, Carter’s book is full of shit.
I don’t know what you’re problem is here. They’ve done their job.
By Jersey McJones on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply
Specious example 1:
First of all, they did not quote Carter but rather added “[An option for Israel is],” and yet even there the caveat is OPTION, not “require.”
CAMERA are sleazy, specioous, spurrious, liars.
I am sick to f’n death of this stifling of any argument about Israel. Carter is EXACTLY correct about this.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply
And the word “demand” from the PBS broadcast? Either the agreement “demand[ed]” something or they did not. The “Fact” section merely points out that there was no such demand. I can’t speak for CAMERA, but it seems clear that Carter thinks a return to 1967 borders was demanded in the accords and CAMERA thinks otherwise. If you are going to quote to me a section, it might be better if you take the entire quote into account.
By Jersey McJones on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply
Res 242 is not mentioned specifically in the PBS interview, Craig. I’m sorry, but I know the difference between spurrious crap and fact. CAMERA is a steaming pile of spurrious crap.
And ya’ know, all this proves EXACTLY what Crater was saying about the problem with the Israel/Palestine debate - people get hot-headed, irrational and specious. It’s hard to have an honest debate about this when people get so loony about it.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply
Here’s the whole PBS story. What you quoted,
Is it your contention that “The United Nations resolutions that apply” does not include Resolution 242? Nonsense.
Jersey. What we have here is not you sniffing out spurious crap but you actively ignoring the truth for the sake of your precious Carter.
This is silly. I’m calling a halt to it. If that’s the best that you can do, it’s pointless. You would not acknowledge the truth if it tweaked you on the nose and went “Honk!”
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply
Oops. Here’s the whole interview.
By Jersey McJones on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply
CAMERA is knit-picking, Craig.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply
Well then, we’ve made a LITTLE progress. You at least admit the existence of something to be picked, even if you consider them nits. I disagree, of course. The problem is, not only are you minimizing legitimate complaints against Carter’s book and public statements, you’re missing the point. All of the “nits” combine to do one thing: illegitimately single out Israel as the bad guy in the middle-east difficulties and pass over what is obvious, that Palestinians have been engaged in much worse evils. He pretends that more is demanded of Israel than has been demanded. He excoriates Israel for occupying Palestinian land while ignoring the obvious reason those lands are still occupied: because every time Israel cedes land, those lands become a launching ground for further Palestinian attacks on Israel. Israel can be taken to task for many things, legitimately and without fiddling with facts to do so but this is a man who wishes to be seen as a fair arbitrator. That he has been such in the past is not questioned by his current critics, many of which have not only admired Carter openly but worked with him in his enterprises. What is become increasingly obvious is that he is that no longer. He is now openly advancing the Palestinians’ position and has well neigh abandoned Israel altogether.
If this is what you consider nits, all I can say is, whatever.
By Dusty on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply
Craig, CAMERA has their own agenda as witnessed by this page on their site. I quote from there:
“Mrs. Meiselman formed CAMERA to respond to the Washington Post’s coverage of Israel’s Lebanon incursion, and to the paper’s general anti-Israel bias.”
I for one, don’t believe the entire editorial board of WaPo is anti-Israel. I do not believe there is a general bias either way on Israel at WaPo. I think as a huge corporation WaPo sides more with than against Israel. So, I ain’t buying what CAMERA is selling.
But feel free to buy in yourself sir.
By Dusty on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply
BTW, I was taken aback when I perused the diaries and saw my name in “lights”. I haven’t been around much lately due to health issues. Sorry I missed it the day you posted it. Could you link to my personal blog next time too?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply
Dusty,
Sorry you’ve not been feeling well.
Everyone has an agenda of their own, including Carter. Do you “not buy” what he’s selling because he has an agenda of his own, or do you buy what he’s selling because you agree with what he says?
Honestly, I think that the “they have an agenda” argument is pretty weak. Whether the WaPo has an anti Israel bias or not, it’s clear that all reporting of the Israel/Lebanon war was very poor for the reason that much of what was reported came from people in Lebanon who were largely pro-Hezbollah, which most of the people in Southern Lebanon are, and anti-Israel, which I think it would be fair to say EVERYONE in Southern Lebanon is, for reporting. Think about it…about the only ones in Southern Lebanon who were even remotely not biased were the UN. AP’s photography work was appallingly and demonstrably biased, running some quite obviously photoshopped photos as news.
However, if, rather than looking at the evidence and evaluating IT on its merits, you choose to ignore the evidence because of what you view as bias, you are free to do so but that doesn’t make the evidence and argument presented by CAMERA disappear. It is either true or not true. Your perception of WaPo’s bias or CAMERA’s bias says nothing about the merits of the arguments. The evidence and argument speak for themselves and it is, after all, what you asked for: a detailed exposition of the complaints regarding Carter’s book.
Oh, and I hope you get to feeling better.
By Paul Watson on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
Just a point on CAMERA’s first point. That wording was agreed for two reasons: because the US vetoed every attempt to insert the word all (unreasonable use of the veto?), and because the US insisted that ‘all’ was unnecessary as the resolution clearly meant withdraw from all territory. At least, that is according to a recent documentary over here, if I’m remembering correctly. That makes CAMERA’s argument true but misleading, and Carter’s also true. I can’t comment on the others at the moment.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply
Paul,
As I understand it, the argument is that Carter says that the relevant UN resolutions and accords “demand” a turn over of all occupied lands and CAMERA’s is that none of them demand any such thing. As you seem to confirm, none of the relevant resolutions and accords demand a return of all lands. The only question is, who is right. It cannot be misleading for CAMERA to claim that none of the resolutions demand all of the land be returned if none of the resolutions demand all of the land be returned.
And if none of the resolutions or accords demand the return of all lands, then Carter cannot be right, as I see it.
By Dusty on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply
When the group readily admits they are trying to counter something they percieve as bias on a specific issue I tend to wonder about their agenda and I look into them more closely than others. There is no mention of who funds this group.
To be honest, I do not have the time or inclination to pour over their site and debate this with you.
I won’t buy what anyone is selling until I can read an excerpt of Carters book. Pulling stuff out of context to debunk it and then only citing your own site as providing facts to the contrary does nothing to make me believe CAMERA is right over Carter.
Whether Begin agreed to an all-out freeze as opposed to a three month freeze means what in the big picture of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? They nit-pick a lot of minor points. It is obviously a pro-Israeli site. I am not saying they are wrong. I am saying a site that exclusively bitches about Carter and anti-Israeli bias and also has Dershowitz on its board is suspect to me.
By Paul Watson on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
So far it’s Jimmy Carter and the rest of the world with one interpretation and the US and Israel on the other side with a different interpretation. That suggests to me that the demand can be construed to exist in the resolution. After all, does the AUMF apply to Iran or not? Different people have different views. The same can apply here, and the two interpreations of the wording can both be legitimate. Carter thinks that “withdraw from occupied territory” clearly refers to all occupied territory in the same way that “reward for the return of” isn’t paid if only half the stolen property turns up. CAMERA thinsk that “withdraw from occupied territory” means withdraw from some of the territory as it wasn’t explicit that all territory should be withdrawn from. Both are arguably correct interpretations on the words itself, and as I said, Carter’s interpretation was what the rest of the world was assured it meant when it was negotiated.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply
Dusty,
Like I said, you’re free to ignore it all you want. If you’re waiting for someone who agrees with Carter to list the inaccuracies contained in his book, well, don’t hold your breath.
Paul,
Well, here’s UN resolution 242 which states in part:
What is required, by the UN Charter, in resolution 242, is “the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” which SHOULD include, among other things, two principles: 1) that Israel withdraw to pre-1967 borders and 2) Palestinians respect the right of Israel’s existence and disavowing all claims of belligerency (i. e., they stop claiming they have a right to blow up Israeli civilians and stop doing so).
So how is a text that says “should” rather than “is required to” to be interpreted as demanding that Israel return to 1967 borders? I’ve spent my adult life learning and applying the principles of interpretation to texts. The word “should” does not mean “must”. In latin, the first is the subjunctive mood and the second is the imperative. English does not, I don’t think, use the term subjunctive but it does distinguish “ought” from “must”. The two are not synonymous.
Further, Israel should not be required to give up lands while Palestinians are intent on the destruction of Israel. What should happen is both sides agree to those principles that apply to them. We’ve seen what happens when Israel unilaterally gives back lands to the Palestinians.
Now, the resolution does contain this language that IS “must” language (I refer to the word “necessity”), namely that the resolution:
So who is standing in line to man this demilitarized zone? Other than Israel, through its occupation of lands, I mean? Where is the uproar from the UN over continuous rocket-fire from the Gaza strip recently returned to the Palestinians? Where are the UN nations or NATO nations lining up to take up armed positions there to see to it that neither Israel or the Palestinians encroach for military strikes? Why are the only demands that are heard that Israel give land back while the elected government of the Palestinians are dedicated to the elimination of Israel? The only group that stood up to police the Gaza Strip were Palestinian terrorists who promptly began firing rockets into Israeli residential districts. Can anyone blame Israel for holding on to land rather than giving Palestinians a new launching place for Katyusha rockets?
I can’t.
In any case, while the resolution affirms the necessity of a just resolution of the refugee problem, in my opinion, it cannot be interpreted to require the return of lands.
By Dusty on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply
To suggest that I am waiting for someone who agrees with Carter to debunk his book is ridiculous and shortsighted. I am offended by your remark Craig. I have said on numerous occasions that I would like to read excerpts of it. Dershowitz is a friggin tool when it comes to Israel and specifically Carter, and when I saw his name on the steering committee, yes it detracted from the site’s message for me. I prefer articles like this one for instance, that does point out some fallacies in Carters language or stance. It also points out how a big segment of Israel admits apartheid is a very real situation, and that Israel had been a long time backer of South Africa’s regimes which promoted apartheid as a viable and good tradition. For Dershowitz to even suggest that Carter supports suicide bombers is outrageous. Any site that asshole is aligned with doesn’t impress me. If you choose to bait me about that, I will not respond.
I am done with this thread, have a good day sir.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply
Dusty,
I am sorry for insulting you.