Reasonable Jimmy Carter on Israel vs. Hateful Pat Buchanan on Israel

[oberliner]

President Carter has written an opinion piece at the Washington Post with an intelligent, reasoned critique against Israel writing that:

"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."

President Carter adds:

"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."

He goes on to call on Israel to withdraw completely from Lebanon (including Shebaa farms), and to withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967 and abide by UN resolutions.

Compare that with the op ed piece written by Pat Buchanan.

Pat Buchanan, in his piece, characterizes the actions of Israel in this manner:

"Within 48 hours, it was apparent Israel was exploiting Hezbollah's attack to execute a preconceived military plan to destroy Lebanon -- i.e, the collective punishment of a people and nation for the crimes of a renegade militia they could not control. It was the moral equivalent of a municipal police going berserk, shooting, killing and ravaging an African-American community, because Black Panthers had ambushed and killed cops."

He makes a point to decry the "power" of AIPAC:

"Why? Because, says Zbigniew Brzezinski, AIPAC, the Israeli lobby, had prepared the resolution and wanted it passed the way they wrote it. Our Knesset complied. It sailed through the House 410-8."

He also talks about Irgun and the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 being a terrorist attack (mocking Netenyahu for suggesting otherwise).

It is interesting to note the differences between the way President Carter chooses to strongly criticize the Israeli actions and the way Pat Buchanan chooses to do likewise.


President Carter's editorial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073100923.html

Pat Buchanan's editorial: http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20060801/cm_uc_crpbux/pat_buchanan20060801

[obnoxiousdrunk]

1. Carter was being

nice while Pat was being brutally honest . Dont Ya think ?

[SammyBlue]

36. No. . .Carter was being what Carter is. . .a deeply religious

compassionate man who doesn't have a hateful, hurtful bone in his body.

Buchanan was being a hate monger and being the racist, bigotted jackass he always has been.

We're defending Pat Buchanan??? The man is proud of his bigotry. That asshole can lick my ass after I'm done eating chili, to use a phrase my friend came up with.

[MysteryToMyself]

2. What do you know?

A republican with foresight.

The very ones that ridiculed Carter for not rushing to war, are the ones getting us in this mess, now.

[MoseyWalker]

25. I think Buchanon is truly a Libertarian

more than a Repub.

Jimmy Carter has been the most respectful, the most respectable and the most respected US leader in the past 50 years around the world. And, yes, I include B Clinton in that analysis.

[dsc]

30. Tell that to a gay or woman

Libertarian my ass. He wanted to put AIDS suffers in camps and keep sodomy illegal.

[BrotherBuzz]

39. Buchanon is a dyed in the wool rupublican...

and has no love for the Neocon foolishness.

[JAbuchan08]

3. Pat Buchanan is blunt and does not feel the need to preface his comments

with a platitudinous support for Israel. He is simply analyzing the situation as he sees it without feeling the need to add a sop to the pro-Israel lobby. The substance of the comments is virtually identical.

[cali]

4. Pat Buchanan

is an out and out antisemite and admirer of Hitler. Having him speak about Israel is like having David Duke opine on Affirmative Action.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

8. How fucking dare you?

That was a particularly putrid attack. As anyone who's read my posts knows, I have harshly condemned Israel, not only for the brutal and senseless bombing of Lebanon, but for the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the attendent horrors such occupation has dealt the Palestinians. None of that has anything to do with the fact that Buchanan is a bigot. And I don't give a shit whether it's antisemitism or anti-Arab bigotry or anti-gay bigotry (something else Buchanan espouses), I don't like bigotry and I'll call it when I see it.

As for you, your comments demonstrate you to be beneath contempt.

[Phx_Dem]

9. Cali is about the only middle of the road poster in I/P

You could not be more wrong with your disgusting statement.

[cali]

10. I usually associate middle of the road

with roadkill (I prefer to think of my stance as nuanced and humanistic) but many thanks for the spirited defense!

[Phx_Dem]

15. no problem Cali--you've earned my respect

even though I disagree with you sometimes, I do always read your posts in threads. Though that post recently where you said something to the effect "I'm not going to read your essay until you make proper paragraphs" was kind of silly. ;-)

PS--nuanced and humanistic is what I meant, just not very "fluent" this morn.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. I usually associate MOR with really bland music!

Disclaimer: Not that I'm saying in any way I think yr posts are bland, it's just when I saw the words 'middle of the road' I suddenly had 'Take It Easy' by the Eagles playing on the mental jukebox :)

[oberliner]

12. Nice choice of sources

Wow, there are right-wing lunatics in Israel?

I had no idea.

To say that the screed on a hard-right website representing Israeli settlers indicates "what Israel has in store for the Arabs" seems not entirely reasonable.

[cali]

13. Ten to one

this poster will be too cowardly to respond to either you or me.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. Your "slip" is showing!

Just as it is wrong to accuse someone of anti-Semitism when it is not warranted, it is just as wrong to accuse someone of being a Jewish racist, which to my knowledge, cali is neither! But I find your post VERY revealing. Those whom you think support Israel (which is not a typical stance for cali) are racists and murders, to boot! I think you have revealed more than you wanted!

[JerseygirlCT]

34. Amen. nt

[Ian David]

6. I'm glad you feel such a close warmy and fuzzy kinship with Pat Buchanan.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SammyBlue]

37. Exactly. . .any DUer agreeing with anything that Racist Republican Bigot

says needs to re-evaluate their positions.

Carter is one thing. . .Buchanan can kiss my Jewish Ass!

[Selatius]

5. Blowing up civilian infrastructure is "collective punishment"

It doesn't matter if it's Hezbollah or Israel doing it with dumb-fire Katyushas or American-made F-16 warplanes.

[warrens]

11. Buchanan ain't wrong on this one

And no one has ever accused him of being diplomatic, while it's Carter's strength. They're both saying essentially the same thing.

[cali]

14. Whether he's right or wrong

is immaterial. He has no credibility on any issue dealing with jews.

[WildEyedLiberal]

16. It continues to amaze me how many DUers just don't get that point

Pat Buchanan is an anti-semite who admires Hitler, period, end of sentence. Those DUers who want to keep rah-rahing Pat Buchanan but who resent being called anti-semitic would be well advised to NOT USE KNOWN ANTI-SEMITES TO BOLSTER THEIR ARGUMENTS.

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

[Spinoza]

17. Fuckin' A. Jews aren't the only people

Buchanan obviously has a problem with. Read some of his comments on Mexican immigrants. And homosexuals. But since he delights in viciously bashing Israel at every opportunity it appears that many on DU are happy to overlook his other 'sins' which normally would not be tolerated on a liberal/progressive website.

[JAbuchan08]

20. So to grant that Buchanan and Carter are essentially saying the same thing

is to be supportive of Buchanan's anti-semitism?

On that note I would like to declare that I am a supporter of Al Queda :sarcasm: You see I oppose the war in Iraq....

[Behind the Aegis]

21. hear that "wooshing" sound...

...that would be the point flying over your head!

[JAbuchan08]

23. Not meaning to be sarcastic, but perhaps you could help me out then?

Two men said virtually the same thing and for recognizing this I apparently am "kin" with Pat Buchanan. What, pray tell is the point of that? Besides pissing me off?

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Honestly...

...the reason people jumped on you is because Buchanan is a Jew-hating POS! Carter is not. So, to say that his words (Buchanan) were basically the same as Carter's without sopping up to the Israeli lobby is a double insult. You have inferred that Carter is careful not to offend AIPAC, but Buchanan is 'just speaking his mind.' It doesn't matter that they said similar things, one is a bigot, the other is not! It would be no different than if someone defended David Duke for his anti-death penalty stance, while fully knowing that Duke is a racist pig!

If you have an opinion, NEVER use a bigot as a source! Also, even tacit approval for what said bigot says can lead to confusion. I KNOW why Buchanan "criticizes" Israel, so when I see someone using him as a source or "defending" him, it makes me wonder why.

They say "a broken clock is right twice a day," and while true, it is still useless the rest of the time, so why use it just twice a day?!

[WildEyedLiberal]

26. Seriously.

Buchanan. Is. An. Anti. Semitic. Bigot.

That's about as plain as I can spell it out. Buchanan "speaks his mind" about Israel because he HATES JEWS. Is that really something DUers want to congratulate? Or are they okay with his bigotry as long as its being used to support their issue position of the day?

The hyper-defensive reaction to the news that Pat Buchanan loves Nazis and hates Jews really reinforces the idea that some people just don't give a shit about who their bedfellows are, as long as they agree with the rhetoric of the day.

[JAbuchan08]

27. I understand your point.

Do you understand mine?

Pat Buchanan said something reasonable. He may be anti-semitic , he certainly has made some rather stupid comments. I will even grant you that Buchanan IS an anti-semite but what he said (in this instance)was reasonable and he refused to dance around the subject. I consider this to be a neutral observation. I am not endorsing the man I am making a comparison of two comments based on what was said in two different instances. For my purposes it absolutely does not matter who said what. If Buchanan had said the former and Carter had said the later, my observation would be the same. I am coming from a perspective of analyzing THE LANGUAGE and not the people who made these comments. Perhaps if you could divorce your emotional reaction from the subject and look at the language independent of who said what you could understand what I am saying. I realize this is difficult, but please try.
My point is that it is a sad state of affairs when Democrats are so afraid of criticizing Israel that it falls to someone like Pat Buchanan to state a frank opinion without feeling the need to add that "of course Israel has the right to defend itself" which like "support the troops" is a method of controlling the debate through control of the language

Frankly I don't NEED Pat Buchanan's support to give my beliefs weight, which is what you are implying I'm fine without Buchanan I was just making an observation, again, about LANGAUGE that is the be all and end all of what I was saying I don't need Pat Buchanan's or Jimmy Carter's support to justify my views

[WildEyedLiberal]

29. The REASON Pat Buchanan said what he said is because he hates Israel.

I'm sorry, there's just no pretending that Pat Buchanan can be a voice of reason on this issue. It would be the same if David Duke offered a critique of affirmative action - even if he makes some valid points that some people might agree with, his opinion on the subject should be discredited because he's a KKK bigot. You can't just ignore Pat Buchanan's past and his hateful ideologies and pretend they somehow don't color his commentary. You can't give him a veneer of objectivity about this issue, because he has none.

You can make your own case for what you belief, for what you think Israel is doing wrong, without agreeing with an anti-Semite. Apologetics for Buchanan on DU just undermine your credibility because of his known attitudes toward Jews. It just harms your argument and your POV if you choose to give him any credit.

Kim Jong Il from North Korea hates Bush, too, but I'd hate to see DUers start saying "I agree with Kim Jong Il" just because they happen to also hate Bush. Like it or not when you choose to voiceferously agree with someone on an issue, you are implicitly endorsing their reasoning.

[JAbuchan08]

43. I don't agree with Pat Buchanan he agrees with me

that's not my fault is it?

[breakaleg]

31. I agree with what you said here.

It's the statement above that we are discussing. Not every one of his personal beliefs.

So, if Pat Buchanan happens to say something reasonable that's worthy of comment and debate, then let's debate that.

Both Carter and Buchanan are essentially saying the same thing. It would be rediculous to say it's ok to agree with one of them and not another.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. Hang on.

You say

"The hyper-defensive reaction to the news that Pat Buchanan loves Nazis and hates Jews really reinforces the idea that some people just don't give a shit about who their bedfellows are, as long as they agree with the rhetoric of the day."

as though there's something wrong with that.

I don't regard the fact that Pat Buchanan vaguely agrees with me as evidence for my position, but nor do I regard it as evidence against it. I'm sure that he believes that ice is cold and water is wet, too.

I think that not giving a shit about who one's bedfellows are is what one should be aiming to cultivate.

[godhatesrepublicans]

22. Oddly enough they're both pretty much right IMHO

or close enough. No land is so holy women & children need to be bombed to bejeezuz over it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

On this one, Pat Buchanan and I appear to be, if not in agreement, then at least claiming vaguely similar things. I'm sure he believes that the Atlantic ocean is wet and the Grand Canyon is a big hole in the ground, too.

I don't view his concurrence as *terribly* conclusive evidence for my position, though...

It's worth noting that he refers to Israel having a pre-conceived military plan to invade Lebanon as though it's surprising and shocking. Someone needs to point out to him that every military had dozens of such pre-conceived plans, for almost every conceivable military eventuality.

It's also worth noting that Carter makes a (good, in my view) suggestion about what the long-term solution to the problem should be, and that Buchanan doesn't.

[Behind the Aegis]

35. But a stopped clock is still BROKEN and useless...

...so why use it as your time-piece?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. I don't.

As I said, I don't view his concurrence as evidence for my being right.

Incidentally, although it's not relevant in this case because Buchanan has a history of being anti-Israel, I *would* regard a perpetually fast clock showing 8:00 as evidence that it's *at least* 8:00. If Bush were to make a pro-Palestinian statement, that I *would* regard as evidence. But Buchanan doing so is irrelevant, because he's not usually pro-Israel.

[JI7]

38. because Carter cares about the people on all sides

he feels sympathy, pain, etc for all sides. and he has hope for better for all sides.

Buchanan is a bigot who is using the current situation to push his bigoted agenda even more.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Oberliner...

I'm in agreement with what you said there, but interestingly enough a 'supporter' of Israel in the I/P forum labelled Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite when another editorial from him was posted in the I/P forum a few months ago. Which kind of proves the point that quite a few folk don't bother with the credentials and background of someone writing about the conflict - if what they're writing agrees with their POV then they're the greatest thing since sliced bread, and if they don't, they're scum of the highest order. Buchanan is a raving bigot and nothing he says should be used to bolster anyone's argument, as the motives he's working from are coming from a darker and stinkier place than that of any DUer. And that applies to anyone quoting those who write about the conflict who are bigots, whether they're bigoted against Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Israelis etc. And it applies to those who think quoting right-wing sources at DU to bolster their arguments is a great thing to do. I get sick of seeing 'but they're not a bigot/neo-conservative/member of a group that supports the targetting of civilians!! Stop trying to change the subject and try discussing this wonderful article that I posted coz I agree with it!!' People need to stop and think about the motives behind the writer and it's a sure bet that if a portion of the article does have some legitimate point, there'll be articles written by legitimate and credible people who are making the same point without the bigotry and stinky politics of the writer they're quoting...

[entanglement]

44. Buchanan did away with the PC and told it like it is

Carter was more 'nice'