Is pointing out discrimination/mistreatment condoning killing?

Question

Jimmy Carter wrote a book recently that basically calls Israel on the fact it does mistreat and discriminate against the Palestinians. IE, Israel exploits them for cheap labor, etc...

Now, he is being accused of condoning Palestinian terrorism?

In my view, this seems ridiculous.

It's like saying that someone who condemns slavery is supporting violence by the Black Panthers... See the analogy? The two are not related.

Just because someone recognizes the flaws of one side does not mean they are condoning the actions of the other side.

Btw, I am of Jewish heritage with my great-grandmother being a holocaust survivor; therefore, if I can see this and be fair, then why can't others.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-12-17T141406Z_01_N17440557_RTRUKOC_0_US-CARTER-MIDEAST-BOOK.xml&src=rss

"A new book by Jimmy Carter in which he compares Israel's treatment of Palestinians to South Africa's Apartheid system has sparked a bitter debate over the former U.S. president's reputation as a peacemaker.

Jewish groups have expressed outrage at the book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," arguing its comparison of Israel to the racist South African regime could undermine the perception of Israel's legitimacy."

This article also states, "Stein said: "Does that mean killing Jews is legitimate? Did I misread this? I don't think so. If he wrote it, he is endorsing violence, which is not the original purpose of the Carter Center.""

Answer 1

It seems that often times, it is in fact condoning the actions of the other. In the case of Israel vs Palestinians, many of those who speak out against Israel are in fact defending Palestinians because they believe that Israel is the aggressor and Palestinians are acting solely in self defense and justified in using any means available to them including the killing of innocents to "repel Israeli aggression". Not my view, but that's neither here nor there to answer your question.
However the bigger picture appears to be possibly human nature. It seems that most people can only grasp at most 2 concepts at a time, which are all encompasing and mutually exclusive - good vs evil, black vs white, republican vs democrat, liberal vs conservative. Being such, if you speak out against one, you are automatically labeled as the other. You must be put in one of only two possible boxes and if you speak against one, that leaves only the other as the only possibility. Speak out against liberal ideology, then you must be a conservative, and vice versa. I think that is the cause of the undercurrent of US=evil sentiment these days. People perceive Iran, NK and Iraq as the innocent victim. So if they are the victim they must be "good" and that means the US is evil is the only other option. Many people actually use this logic to defend their position. There is a lot of if X is A then Y must be B arguments being used. For example if the US has ever made mistakes or misbehaved, then anyone who is in opposition to the US must therefore be guilt free and beyond reproach. To be fair, both "sides" use this. For example, creationists use this to defend creationism - if the theory of evolution is "flawed" or "incomplete", that means creationism must be the only possible correct explanation. Things would be a lot easier if people realized that there is a lot of room in the "evil" box and there can be more than one occupant. And just because A has a foot in the "evil" box is not a reason to not hold B accountable for being in the "evil" box. Using the logic of only the "pure" being able to hold others accountable, only saints could participate in the justice system and yhus criminals could never be brought to justice.

Answer 2

I agree with you.

I'm not jewish. Had a friend whose mother was survivor. My mom taught me enough about evils of nazism tho.

I think that an entertaining answer to your question would be to pretend to be a non-jewish person and address say the B'nai Brith or Jewish Congress and talk about some of the injustices.

I like the idea of B. B. as a bastion against genocide etc, but have issues with anybody who gives any country a moral carte blanche.

The power of Nazism was that they had a moral carte blanche. It was o.k what they did because people did not care about other people from other ethnic groups.

Nobody wants to be labeled a monster and many have other desires.

I think that the only way that Carter's book might be considered supporting palestinina terrorism is if those people have no other means of getting a better living standard. Carter is very much a man of peace.

Answer 3

Israel should do what it wants. The Palestinians are a bunch of killers. They elect Hamas as their government, which is a terrorist group. They blow up civilians in the streets.

If the terrorists put down their weapons, there would be peace.
If the Jews put theirs down, they would be dead.

That is why the Israelis do what they do.

This is the same Jimmy Carter who destroyed this country in the 70's, lost by a landslide, and could not get our hostages back. Reagan had them on a plane to Turkey before he even took office. Why, because he promised force to get them and Iran knew it.

Then Carter runs his mouth criticizing Pres Bush, which completely violates tradition. But what do you expect from a liberal? No class and full of useless opinions that cause nothing but problems. He is qualified for that job.

Answer 4

The problem is that instead of reading his book and forming their own opinion, most people just jump on the fact that his book is anti-Israeli and call him a terrorist-supporter. Labeling without knowing better is the evil here. I completely agree, just because he recognizes the flaws of the obviously brutal beyond reason Israeli government, does not mean that he condones violence from the other side of the apartheid wall. Sorry, had to throw that in there. :)

Answer 5

I really don't care for deciding who is right and who is wrong. If suffering is increased then something is wrong and must change. When a balance is reached then right is happening. I don't want to blame anyone. I think Carter takes a similar path. Unfortunately some people are too defensive and sensitive. Instead of considering a constructive, albeit unpleasant critique they get angery and reject all critisim as an insult towards the larger estabishment they associate themselves with.

Answer 6

No it's not. Your right. I don't like Jimmy Carter but I don't think he is directly supporting terrorism. Some of the stuff his political party says and supports indirectly fuels the fire for terrorist. For instance, I believe terrorist leaders will take a comment like that and twist it to their needs justifying sending suicide bombers or having/propagating anti-Semitic thoughts. Then when they launch a warped political agenda against president Bush things tend to start getting a bit "fuzzy" in my opinion...

Answer 7

that do not sound like a god i'd be listening to. It sound like harmless human beings getting killed off basically because of their conception. No The christian's god did not Condone some fool Christian took their god's note and mess it up. basically because they're a witch does not recommend they worshiping devil. they'd nicely be Pagan for all all of us understand. they basically getting killed for the reiglion that's erroneous. basically because they're a witch does not recommend they should be killed. would not it say interior the bible Shall not Kill? And nonetheless human beings are being killed that's extremely stupid.. because of this i understand the bible is synthetic. because If a so called god Say shall not kill then it recommend shall not killed. i trust interior the Greek and Roman gods and that i understand my morals. no body no count number who or what they are might want to Die basically because some stupid e book tell them to. because of this i'm not christian anymore because of their pastt and in the experience that they'd their way anybody will be christian. and under no circumstances all of us may be christian.

Answer 8

When asses are needed.-- You will never get the crowd to cry Hosanna until you ride into town on an ***.

from Nietzsche's Assorted Opinions and Maxims,s. 313, R.J. Hollingdale transl.


One often gets caught in that false categorization (bigot/terrorist), when one criticizes the stae of Isreal.

The means to real peace. No government admits any more that
it keeps an army to satisfy occasionally the desire for conquest.
Rather the army is supposed to serve for defense, and one invokes the
morality that approves of self-defense. But this implies one's own
morality and the neighbor's immorality; for the neighbor must be
thought of as eager to attack and conquer if our state must think of
means of self-defense. Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring
an army imply that our neighbor, who denies the desire for conquest
just as much as does our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps
an army only for reasons of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a
cunning criminal who would like nothing better than to overpower a
harmless and awkward victim without any fight. Thus all states are
now ranged against each other: they presuppose their neighbor's bad
disposition and their own good disposition. This presupposition,
however, is inhumane, as bad as war and worse. At bottom, indeed, it
is itself the challenge and the cause of wars, because, as I have
said, it attributes immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes a
hostile disposition and act. We must abjure the doctrine of the army
as a means of self-defense just as completely as the desire for
conquests.

And perhaps the great day will come when people,
distinguished by wars and victories and by the highest development of
a military order and intelligence, and accustomed to make the
heaviest sacrifices for these things, will exclaim of its own free
will, "We break the sword," and will smash its entire military
establishment down to its lowest foundations. Rendering oneself
unarmed when one had been the best-armed, out of a height of feeling
-- that is the means to real peace, which must always rest on a peace
of mind; whereas the so-called armed peace, as it now exists in all
countries, is the absence of peace of mind. One trusts neither
oneself nor one's neighbor and, half from hatred, half from fear,
does not lay down arms. Rather perish than hate and fear, and twice
rather perish than make oneself hated and feared -- this must someday
become the highest maxim for every single commonwealth.

Our liberal representatives, as is well known, lack the time
for reflecting on the nature of man: else they would know that they
work in vain when they work for a "gradual decrease of the military
burden." Rather, only when this kind of need has become greatest
will the kind of god be nearest who alone can help here. The tree of
war-glory can only be destroyed all at once, by a stroke of
lightning: but lightning, as indeed you know, comes from a cloud --
and from up high.

(translation by W. Kaufmann, transcribed by T. Rourke. File archived
at Lord Etrigan's Nietzsche site...
http://members.aol.com/lrdetrigan/index4.html Accept no imitations!)

Answer 9

How can any thinking person on either side of the isle take that rabble-rouser (Carter)seriously?
That guy has been running down our country to every dictator on the planet ever since he left office.
Even when he was president,he wasn't worth two cents.

Answer 10

the fence works in cutting down suicide attacks

when the paleostinians learn to live in peace, the wall and the discriminatory practices of check points searching for explosives and weapons, will be as extinct as the dinosaurs

disarm the arabs and there will be peace
disarm the jews, and there will be another holocaust

he condones killing because he does not condemn it


your great grandmother would be so proud of you