Why is it considered wrong to be critical of Israel?

Question

Jimmy Carter is being bombarded with negativity over his new book "Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid." I know Jimmy Carter to be a Pioneer when it comes to world peace as he has on countless occasions been a great diplomat in the past. He speaks the truth in his book and his characterizations are not far fetched. Yet his new book is being received with negative comments and plenty of disrespect. Is it wrong to speak with criticism against Israel even when you speak the truth?

Answer 1

carter was an appeaser. a worthless, worst kind of human. I wish for the USA to not ever have a president like that again, because it'll seriously damage this beautiful country.


And what are you talking about "Apartheid" ? Do you even know what it means?
Go to Israel and see for yourself, and STOP making these ridiculous statements.

P.S. Carter did lie.

Answer 2

In the six decades since the founding of Israel, there have been about one and a half new ideas for solving the most intractable problem on the map of the world. In fact, ever since Britain's 1917 Balfour declaration made incompatible promises to Jews and Arabs struggling over the same tiny plot of land, most would-be solutions have counted on an outbreak of goodwill among the Middle East's warring parties. This tradition continues in the Iraq Study Group report, which declares that "there must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts," as a small warm-up for tackling the problem of Iraq.

What a good idea! And then we'll cure cancer, to pave the way for healthcare reform. Why, of course, all humanity should put down its weapons and learn to live together in harmony and siblinghood - especially in the Holy Land, birthplace of three great religions (so far).

Comes now former president Jimmy Carter with a new bestselling book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. It's not clear what he means by using the loaded word "apartheid", since the book makes no attempt to explain it, but the only reasonable interpretation is that Carter is comparing Israel to the former white racist government of South Africa. That is a foolish and unfair comparison, unworthy of the man who won - and deserved - the Nobel peace prize for bringing Israel and Egypt together in the Camp David Accords, and who has lent such lustre to the imaginary office of former president.

I mean, what's the parallel? Apartheid had a philosophical component and a practical one, both quite bizarre. Philosophically, it was committed to the notion of racial superiority. No doubt many Israelis have racist attitudes towards Arabs, but the official philosophy of the government is quite the opposite, and sincere efforts are made to, for example, instill humanitarian and egalitarian attitudes in children. That is not true, of course, in Arab countries, where hatred of Jews is a standard part of the curriculum.

The practical component of apartheid involved the creation of phoney nations called "Bantustans". Black South Africans would be stripped of their citizenship and assigned to far-away Bantustans where often they had never before set foot. The goal was a racially pure white South Africa, though the contradiction with the need for black labour was never resolved. Here might be a parallel with Israel, which needs the labour of the Arabs it is currently trying to keep out.

But in other ways, the implied comparison is backward. To start, no one has yet thought to accuse Israel of creating a phoney country in finally acquiescing to the creation of a Palestinian state. Palestine is no Bantustan. Or, if it is, it is the creation of Arabs, not Jews. Furthermore, Israel has always had Arab citizens.

They are Arabs who were living in what became Israel prior to 1948 and who didn't leave. No doubt they suffer discrimination. Nevertheless, they are citizens with the right to vote and so on. There used to be Jews living in Arab nations, but they also fled in 1948 and subsequent years - in numbers roughly equivalent to the Arabs who fled Israel. Now there are virtually no Jews in Arab countries - even in a moderate Arab country like Jordan. How many Jews do you think there will be in the new sovereign state of Palestine?

Answer 3

No, speak however you want. Personally, I think the muslims need to leave the Jewish people alone for a change. Christians too!

About Jimmy Carter - He is an idiot. He has no credibility, especially since he went to North Korea and spoke to Kim Jong Il's father. He came back to the US and told us he could promise that north korea had no interest and would not build nuclear weapons.

Answer 4

It's, well, complicated.

Instinctively I would chalk it up to the effects of the Holocaust; this is a group of people that underwent a great hardship. Granted there were literally tens of millions of other civilians that died in the holocaust, but we like to focus on the jews, for whatever reason, possibly because percentage wide their casualties were greatest.

But,

in other countries you can have a rationale dialogue about Israel's crimes against humanity without people calling you immoral, anti-semite, blah blah blah. This includes Israel, where a very sizable population is against the actions of their government.

So what makes the US different?

American zionists have done a very good job of equating zionism with judiasm when in fact they are vastly different. Thus, criticizing zionism (which is like criticizing nazism, its a group of bad people, okay to speak against) is equated with being anti-Jewish, which is obviously not the case. when you add in the powerful jewish lobby (AIPACC, ADL, etc), you get an atmosphere where it is political suicide to even speak out in support of Palestinians.

Consider the war in Lebanon. there is no question that Israel committed war crimes; its a debate not even worth having. There is no doubt, they have admitted it themselves, and yet to suggest such a thing in the US is blasphemy.

I could go on for a while, but I won't.

check out my site, I write about such things from time to time, questionthemark.org

Answer 5

Jimmy Carter is a moron who knows nothing of foreign policy. His presidency was the worst in the last century and had no foreign policy. He knows nothing of the jewish palestine conflict and is a anti-semite. He would give this country away if he could, is not proud of America but rather like most democrates feels like America owes the world. His book is full untruths and mis representations.

Answer 6

Carter was and is the best president ever to serve Israel. Who made peace between Israel and Egypt. Some radical Jews will not like him for him calling for real peace in the Holy land but most Jews love him.

Answer 7

It is wrong to be critical of Israel based on anti-semetic grounds or to hold it to a standard no other state is held to. Unfortunately, a lot of criticism is based on hatred of Jews.

If someone wants to criticise Israel based on arguements that can be applied to any country, go ahead.

Answer 8

It's the influence of the Jewish Lobby in the USA. It is a shame!
A former President of the USA is not even allowed to publish his book in a University (sorry, forgot which one it was), because to many jewish studens were against it.

Well,money makes the world go around, right?
And also votes that maybe can be lost in elections, cause the jewish comunity is that big.

At least Carter learnt his lesson and I appreciated that.

Answer 9

Jimmy Carter is an anti Semite. The title of his book is libelous. He does not speak the truth.

Answer 10

it relatively is to Navymom. there have been many border disputes between the U.S. and Canada. The "land grabs" suggested here have been in all probability in the process the French and Indian conflict or conflict of 1812 by using fact the author is talking approximately armed conflict. i'm unsure you are able to reallly call them land grabs, yet the two those conflicts ordinary the borders.