Friday, January 19, 2007

Camera, corrects one of the most glaring and indecent distortions in Carter's book, namely, his "understanding" of Resolution 242. Frankly, a surprising type of dis-interpretation from a former American leader in search of truth and reconciliation:

On page 215 of his book, for instance, Carter writes that:

[An option for Israel is] withdrawal to the 1967 border specified in UN
Resolution 242 and as promised in the Camp David Accords and the Oslo
Agreement...


Similarly, he writes on p. 57:

The 1949 armistice demarcation lines became the borders of the new nation of
Israel and were accepted by Israel and the United States, and recognized
officially by the United Nations.


These statements are false.



The "1949 armistice" lines did not become the "accepted" borders of Israel.
Nor did Camp David and Oslo specify a withdrawal to these alleged borders.
Moreover, both the language of 242 and its intent, as described by the
resolution's drafters, are clear. Britain's Lord Caradon, who introduced the
resolution on November 22, 1967, after months of discussion in the wake of the
Six Day War, has explicitly emphasized the very opposite of Carter's
claims.

In an interview in February 1973 on Israel Radio he said:

We knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent
frontiers; they were a cease-fire line of a couple decades earlier. We did not
say the '67 boundaries must be forever.


In the Beirut Daily Star on June 12, 1974, Caradon
reiterated:

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions
of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After
all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on
the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why
we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them.


There is more:

Carter's falsifications are not limited to mangling 242. He charges with regard to the barrier built by Israel in the wake of unprecedented terrorist attacks originating in the West Bank:

The governments of Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert have built the fence and
wall entirely within Palestinian territory, intruding deeply into the West Bank
to encompass Israeli settlement blocs and large areas of other Palestinian
land.


The statement falsely depicts the course of the barrier. According to UN numbers, the path of the barrier under construction adheres to 45% of the "armistice line" and even in some places veers inside pre-1967 Israel. Not surprisingly, Carter neglects to mention the dramatic life-saving effect of the barrier - which has mostly done what was intended in thwarting easy entry by killers into Israel.


Clearly, facts, official language and documented historical milestones do not matter at all to those who seek to endow the former president with an aura of infallibility, as in this article by the aptly named Jihad el-Khazen. Here are his comments on the group of 14 Carter's advisers who resigned in protest over the book. Following Cater's tirade about the "silencing" tactics of Jewish-controlled media, Jihad does not miss a step as he provides this rationale for dismissing the significance of the gesture:

I observed from their names that they are American
Jews, mostly from the region, and some of them worked in the Carter
administration. It seems that they could not put up with a true word against
Israel. They belong to an American Jewish minority that supports Israel whether
right or wrong. (The January 13, 2007 issue of 'The Economist' includes a
lengthy feature about Israel and Jews around the world, urging the Jews to join
the discussion about Israel, and not to defend it no matter what it
does.

Well, at least he out and says it, unlike others who mumble sneeringly under their breath: They have Jewish names, they are Jews! Jews, for God's sakes, so what does it matter that they denounce Carter's lies? Are we to beieve that Jews will be concerned for truth?

Here is what Ophelia Benson, from Butteflies and Wheels, writes about politics and truth, in a subject totally unrelated:

Politics ... got nothing to do with accuracy, evidence, inquiry, critical thinking - it's all mush. Mush-world. Baby world. Coax world. 'Is this okay, will this do?' Who cares; is it right, or not? [etc] But the political way of thinking - at the extreme - is like NASA - and is a kind of magical thinking - if the majority thinks so then it is true, which can even become, if the majority wants it to, it will happen. Like prayer, perhaps - a background idea that our hopes and wishes (and prayers) really do affect rocks and gases - really do protect the shuttle and keep it from exploding.


That's politics at its worst,

I highlighted the part I thought was the most scary: that truth, in politics, never has a sustainability and existence of its own. It is a function of majority will and desire, laziness and moral relaivism, never troubled by facts, numbers, records, declarations, written documents, valid arguments. It's about persuasion, not reality. I am pretty sure that, unlike what his aides are putting forth, Carter was quite astonished at the reception of his book. I have little doubt that he expected his name and presidential stature to suffice in promoting a bunch of lies and distortions. Apparently, the reason for such an opposition could only be due to the power of the Jewish Lobby over the media and academia.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home