In Just Seven Short Paragraphs, Jimmy Carter Tells 2 Lies, Makes 2 Incoherent Arguments, Takes an Anti-Israel Stance that the State Department Mocks, and Just Generally Annoys the Hell Out of Us
First of all, how shameless does Jimmy Carter have to be to dare to take up pen and give Israel advice on how to protect its citizens from terrorists? This is the man who lost Iran to Islamofascism. If we were comatose ferrets, we wouldn't try to give Lance Armstrong athletic advice. Yet nonetheless, here is Carter offering the best he can come up with.
There is barely a sentence or passage of this sanctimonious drivel that is not somewhere between intellectual dishonesty and demonstrable lying. This article reads like it could have been compiled from random anti-Israel columns: virtually every popular excuse for violence ("Shebba Farms is disputed"), facile red herring ("Israel will fail in their attempt to bomb Arabs into opposing terrorism") and incoherent argument ("Israel has made Hezbollah and Hamas popular") makes an appearance. It's like anti-Israel apologists aren't even trying any more - they've just got a list of catchphrases that they insert randomly into their propaganda.
Beginning of second paragraph:
This stratagem precipitated the renewed violence that erupted in June when Palestinians dug a tunnel under the barrier that surrounds Gaza and assaulted some Israeli soldiers, killing two and capturing one. They offered to exchange the soldier for the release of 95 women and 313 children who are among almost 10,000 Arabs in Israeli prisons, but this time Israel rejected a swap and attacked Gaza in an attempt to free the soldier and stop rocket fire into Israel.
That is a verifiable, obvious, bald-faced lie. Hamas never offered to exchange Shalit in exchange for " the release of 95 women and 313 children". They offered to release information about Shalit in exchange for those women and children under 18. The very minimum that Hamas would ever accept for Shalit was - from the very first moment - all terrorists without blood on their hands. Seriously - from a former President of the United States, right there in the second paragraph, an outright lie.
Rest of second paragraph:
The resulting destruction brought reconciliation between warring Palestinian factions and support for them throughout the Arab world.
Actually, it was the success of the kidnapping that increased Hamas's popularity throughout the Arab world and brought about a reconciliation with Fatah. But wouldn't it be nice if it was Israel's fault?
Beginning of third paragraph:
Hezbollah militants then killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two others, and insisted on Israel's withdrawal from disputed territory and an exchange for some of the several thousand incarcerated Lebanese.
Calling the Shebba Farms is "disputed territory" from a Lebanese standpoint is about as legitimate as calling California "disputed territory" from a Mexican standpoint. In May 2000, Israel withdrew from Lebanon and had the UN walk over the border inch by inch to verify that. So theoretically, a resistance group like Hezbollah should have had no more purpose for existing. But since Hezbollah is committed to wiping out every Jew in Israel, they needed an excuse to keep fighting. So Syria declared that some of the land that Israel had taken from them in 1967 (the Shebba Farms) had actually been Lebanese land all along and that Hezbollah needed to liberate it. This trick was so transparent that State Department Near East Public Diplomacy Director Alberto Fernandez outright mocked anyone who would be so stupid as to suggest its validity:
Oh come on, the 'Lebanese Resistance', if I may use that term sarcastically, didn't know the Shebaa Farms was occupied until the Syrians told them so. That is just ridiculous.
Someone should tell Carter that people at the State Department think that the things he's telling the American people are worthy of sarcastic ridicule.
Whole fourth paragraph:
It is inarguable that Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks on its citizens, but it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response. The result instead has been that broad Arab and worldwide support has been rallied for these groups, while condemnation of both Israel and the United States has intensified.
You know how when racists say that they have lots of black friends, people make fun of them? That's how we feel when we read "Israel has a right to defend itself, but...". It's a caricature of how people who don't really believe that talk and write. It's also worth noting that Israel isn't targeting civilian populations to turn those populations against Hamas or Hezbollah - they're trying to destroy the weapons that have been hidden among those populations. But the real gem of this passage is the ever-popular "Israel has made Hamas and Hezbollah more popular". As if Hamas and Hezbollah needed to be more popular: Hamas won a majority of the Palestinian vote, while the Hezbollah political alliance won 24 out of 24 seats in southern Lebanon. And even if that wasn't true, it certainly seems like they have enough support to murder and kidnap Israeli soldiers. And as for the absurd implication that an Arab world that had been trying to successfully attack Israel for 50 years would turn their backs on the Arabs who finally managed to do it - to point out the logic is to embarrass the advocate who is shameless enough to suggest it.
Beginning of the fifth paragraph:
Israel belatedly announced, but did not carry out, a two-day cessation in bombing Lebanon
We've been mocking that argument all day. In a word, did Israel unconditionally promise a two-day cessation in bombing Lebanon? No. Implying otherwise is a fib.
End of sixth and beginning of seventh paragraphs:
Tragically, the current conflict is part of the inevitably repetitive cycle of violence that results from the absence of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, exacerbated by the almost unprecedented six-year absence of any real effort to achieve such a goal. Leaders on both sides ignore strong majorities that crave peace, allowing extremist-led violence to preempt all opportunities for building a political consensus.
Israel leaves Gaza to Hamas and Lebanon to Hezbollah. Hamas comes out of Gaza to keep killing and murdering Israelis. Hezbollah comes out of Lebanon to keep killing and murdering Israelis. It's a cycle of violence! As to the "strong majorities that crave peace", we hope he's not referring to the majority that elected Hamas or to the entire south of Lebanon that unanimously elected the Hezbollah coalition - because we don't remember any of those parties running on a peace platform.
Rest of seventh paragraph:
Traumatized Israelis cling to the false hope that their lives will be made safer by incremental unilateral withdrawals from occupied areas, while Palestinians see their remnant territories reduced to little more than human dumping grounds surrounded by a provocative "security barrier" that embarrasses Israel's friends and that fails to bring safety or stability.
Remember above how we made the joke about racists who talk about having black friends. If we would have known that this paragraph was coming, we would have written something like "racists who talk about having black friends - but complain about how ineloquent those friends are". Because that would make Carter's claim to be a friend of Israel who is embarrassed by Israeli self-defense much funnier.
Also totally precious is this part from the middle of the eighth paragraph:
Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel's official pre-1967 borders must be honored.
Here's why we don't think Jimmy Carter should be taken seriously when he talks about the Middle East (besides the whole he lost Iran to Islamism thing). It's because he pretends that he would take a stand against people who refuse to honor Israel's official borders - yet just a few paragraphs above he had sought to explain why Hamas and Hezbollah's failure to honor said borders wasn't really all that bad.
In just seven paragraphs, former President Jimmy Carter used whatever glow of the office he still possesses to:
* assert a demonstrably falsehood about Hezbollah's prisoner swap offer
* assert a demonstrably falsehood about how Israel announced an (unconditional) 48-hour break in air attacks
* endorse a Hezbollah interpretation of "disputed land" that's so bad that State Department diplomats go on the record to mock people who use it
* incoherently argue that Hamas and Hezbollah - despite doing things like dominating local elections - were not popular before Israel attacked them
* incoherently argue that Hamas and Hezbollah would have lost popularity if Israel let them achieve a victory that Arabs have been trying to achieve for half a century
* annoyingly call the dynamic in which "Israel withdraws, yet its enemies chase them across international borders to kill Israelis" a "cycle of violence"
* annoyingly imply that he supported the sanctity of Israel's borders
* annoyingly imply that he is a friend of Israel despite the seven vapid anti-Israel myths described above - myths that he sanctimoniously peddled as insightful and brave
But hey, what do we know - the man has a Nobel Prize. Maybe if Israelis didn't fire back, their Arab enemies would stop trying to kill them - nonviolence always works against genocidal maniacs.
[Cross-posted at IsraPundit]
There is barely a sentence or passage of this sanctimonious drivel that is not somewhere between intellectual dishonesty and demonstrable lying. This article reads like it could have been compiled from random anti-Israel columns: virtually every popular excuse for violence ("Shebba Farms is disputed"), facile red herring ("Israel will fail in their attempt to bomb Arabs into opposing terrorism") and incoherent argument ("Israel has made Hezbollah and Hamas popular") makes an appearance. It's like anti-Israel apologists aren't even trying any more - they've just got a list of catchphrases that they insert randomly into their propaganda.
Beginning of second paragraph:
This stratagem precipitated the renewed violence that erupted in June when Palestinians dug a tunnel under the barrier that surrounds Gaza and assaulted some Israeli soldiers, killing two and capturing one. They offered to exchange the soldier for the release of 95 women and 313 children who are among almost 10,000 Arabs in Israeli prisons, but this time Israel rejected a swap and attacked Gaza in an attempt to free the soldier and stop rocket fire into Israel.
That is a verifiable, obvious, bald-faced lie. Hamas never offered to exchange Shalit in exchange for " the release of 95 women and 313 children". They offered to release information about Shalit in exchange for those women and children under 18. The very minimum that Hamas would ever accept for Shalit was - from the very first moment - all terrorists without blood on their hands. Seriously - from a former President of the United States, right there in the second paragraph, an outright lie.
Rest of second paragraph:
The resulting destruction brought reconciliation between warring Palestinian factions and support for them throughout the Arab world.
Actually, it was the success of the kidnapping that increased Hamas's popularity throughout the Arab world and brought about a reconciliation with Fatah. But wouldn't it be nice if it was Israel's fault?
Beginning of third paragraph:
Hezbollah militants then killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two others, and insisted on Israel's withdrawal from disputed territory and an exchange for some of the several thousand incarcerated Lebanese.
Calling the Shebba Farms is "disputed territory" from a Lebanese standpoint is about as legitimate as calling California "disputed territory" from a Mexican standpoint. In May 2000, Israel withdrew from Lebanon and had the UN walk over the border inch by inch to verify that. So theoretically, a resistance group like Hezbollah should have had no more purpose for existing. But since Hezbollah is committed to wiping out every Jew in Israel, they needed an excuse to keep fighting. So Syria declared that some of the land that Israel had taken from them in 1967 (the Shebba Farms) had actually been Lebanese land all along and that Hezbollah needed to liberate it. This trick was so transparent that State Department Near East Public Diplomacy Director Alberto Fernandez outright mocked anyone who would be so stupid as to suggest its validity:
Oh come on, the 'Lebanese Resistance', if I may use that term sarcastically, didn't know the Shebaa Farms was occupied until the Syrians told them so. That is just ridiculous.
Someone should tell Carter that people at the State Department think that the things he's telling the American people are worthy of sarcastic ridicule.
Whole fourth paragraph:
It is inarguable that Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks on its citizens, but it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response. The result instead has been that broad Arab and worldwide support has been rallied for these groups, while condemnation of both Israel and the United States has intensified.
You know how when racists say that they have lots of black friends, people make fun of them? That's how we feel when we read "Israel has a right to defend itself, but...". It's a caricature of how people who don't really believe that talk and write. It's also worth noting that Israel isn't targeting civilian populations to turn those populations against Hamas or Hezbollah - they're trying to destroy the weapons that have been hidden among those populations. But the real gem of this passage is the ever-popular "Israel has made Hamas and Hezbollah more popular". As if Hamas and Hezbollah needed to be more popular: Hamas won a majority of the Palestinian vote, while the Hezbollah political alliance won 24 out of 24 seats in southern Lebanon. And even if that wasn't true, it certainly seems like they have enough support to murder and kidnap Israeli soldiers. And as for the absurd implication that an Arab world that had been trying to successfully attack Israel for 50 years would turn their backs on the Arabs who finally managed to do it - to point out the logic is to embarrass the advocate who is shameless enough to suggest it.
Beginning of the fifth paragraph:
Israel belatedly announced, but did not carry out, a two-day cessation in bombing Lebanon
We've been mocking that argument all day. In a word, did Israel unconditionally promise a two-day cessation in bombing Lebanon? No. Implying otherwise is a fib.
End of sixth and beginning of seventh paragraphs:
Tragically, the current conflict is part of the inevitably repetitive cycle of violence that results from the absence of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, exacerbated by the almost unprecedented six-year absence of any real effort to achieve such a goal. Leaders on both sides ignore strong majorities that crave peace, allowing extremist-led violence to preempt all opportunities for building a political consensus.
Israel leaves Gaza to Hamas and Lebanon to Hezbollah. Hamas comes out of Gaza to keep killing and murdering Israelis. Hezbollah comes out of Lebanon to keep killing and murdering Israelis. It's a cycle of violence! As to the "strong majorities that crave peace", we hope he's not referring to the majority that elected Hamas or to the entire south of Lebanon that unanimously elected the Hezbollah coalition - because we don't remember any of those parties running on a peace platform.
Rest of seventh paragraph:
Traumatized Israelis cling to the false hope that their lives will be made safer by incremental unilateral withdrawals from occupied areas, while Palestinians see their remnant territories reduced to little more than human dumping grounds surrounded by a provocative "security barrier" that embarrasses Israel's friends and that fails to bring safety or stability.
Remember above how we made the joke about racists who talk about having black friends. If we would have known that this paragraph was coming, we would have written something like "racists who talk about having black friends - but complain about how ineloquent those friends are". Because that would make Carter's claim to be a friend of Israel who is embarrassed by Israeli self-defense much funnier.
Also totally precious is this part from the middle of the eighth paragraph:
Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel's official pre-1967 borders must be honored.
Here's why we don't think Jimmy Carter should be taken seriously when he talks about the Middle East (besides the whole he lost Iran to Islamism thing). It's because he pretends that he would take a stand against people who refuse to honor Israel's official borders - yet just a few paragraphs above he had sought to explain why Hamas and Hezbollah's failure to honor said borders wasn't really all that bad.
In just seven paragraphs, former President Jimmy Carter used whatever glow of the office he still possesses to:
* assert a demonstrably falsehood about Hezbollah's prisoner swap offer
* assert a demonstrably falsehood about how Israel announced an (unconditional) 48-hour break in air attacks
* endorse a Hezbollah interpretation of "disputed land" that's so bad that State Department diplomats go on the record to mock people who use it
* incoherently argue that Hamas and Hezbollah - despite doing things like dominating local elections - were not popular before Israel attacked them
* incoherently argue that Hamas and Hezbollah would have lost popularity if Israel let them achieve a victory that Arabs have been trying to achieve for half a century
* annoyingly call the dynamic in which "Israel withdraws, yet its enemies chase them across international borders to kill Israelis" a "cycle of violence"
* annoyingly imply that he supported the sanctity of Israel's borders
* annoyingly imply that he is a friend of Israel despite the seven vapid anti-Israel myths described above - myths that he sanctimoniously peddled as insightful and brave
But hey, what do we know - the man has a Nobel Prize. Maybe if Israelis didn't fire back, their Arab enemies would stop trying to kill them - nonviolence always works against genocidal maniacs.
[Cross-posted at IsraPundit]
