So then there was the time that Jimmy Carter - when asked about a genocidal conflict that may be perpetuated by Muslims on non-Muslims [that was the civil war - Darfur is Arab on black, but all the tribes involved are Islamic - chagrined thanks to MR reader Ya'akov for the correction]- got all bashful and precise:

“There is a legal definition of genocide and Darfur does not meet that legal standard. The atrocities were horrible but I don’t think it qualifies to be called genocide,” he said. Washington is almost alone in branding the 4 1/2 years of violence in Darfur genocide...That’s one reason why using the textbook definition is offensive. There’s another reason, too: namely, that Carter hasn’t always been such a stickler for precision when applying that vaunted moral yardstick of his. If it’s so desperately “unhelpful” to go throwing around the concept of genocide even when it arguably applies,

The link goes to Allah and not the original story because we want you to read his analysis of why settling on one definition rather than another is a choice motivated by purpose. It's a part with the genuinely bewildering question regarding liberal sophisticates who insist on finding imagined nuance in international relations: even if that was true - and it's not - what is it about you that would make you care about something like that?

But more to the point for MR's demo: can anyone think of an example where Jimmy Carter is not so careful about adhering to strict definitions when throwing around breathless accusations? Maybe a country that he accuses of being an anti-Arab apartheid regime, when in fact that country has Arab parliament members elected by Arab citizens. Full political rights, of course, being the classic definition of an apartheid regime.

Apparently Jimmy Carter can be cool and calculating when it comes to explaining why we shouldn't be too quick to judge the genocidal regime in Khartoum. But Israeli crimes are so overwhelming that they literally make him "nauseous," apparently overcoming his circumspection and forcing him to viciously slander Israel. Jimmy Carter's moral calculus: Sudan's government deserves the benefit of a doubt, but the Jewish State's is beyond the pale of justification.

References:
* Jimmy Carter on Darfur: What genocide? [HA]
* Carter "Nauseated" By Jewish Settlements [MR]

Previously:
* Carter's Appearance At UC Irvine Provides Opportunity For Snark About Peace Treaties, Tears About American Academia
* 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
* Is Jimmy Carter Just An Old-Fashioned Christian Fundamentalist, Anti-Semitic Bigot?

Cross-posted to:
* Israpundit