Peanut-Brained Pundit Pleads ‘Palestinian Apartheid!’
Posted by Oyster on November 28, 2006
Just like the saying that ‘not everything that tastes good tastes good together’, I say that just because you’re an expert in one thing doesn’t make you an expert in another thing.
Case-&-point: Noam Chomsky. Seriously, most of his supporters really believe that MIT pays him the big-bucks to write nutso American / Israel conspiracy theories (and forwards to Holocaust denial books). Perhaps I’ll take more anti-Israel agitators seriously when they preface every Chomsky quote with an explanation of computational linguistics. But I
Driving home listening to NPR, I got red-in-the-face mad listening to Jimmy Carter (who obviously fancies himself like his hero, the more-famous JC…) on Fresh Air sound off on his new book that he’s hocking, “Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid“.
Read on for more of Oyster’s analysis:
On matters like nuclear submarines, peanut-farming, and causing rampant inflation, I’ll cede the argument to Jimmy. Otherwise, take a hike. We don’t need any more air-brained celebrities trying to simplify complicated conflicts with black-and-white rhetoric. Listening to his arguments is like listening to a speech by Edward Said. Edward Said when he was 8. They were the usual accusations, but sloppily argued. He made several mistakes, such as stating that Israel “reoccupied” Gaza recently (Oh really? You tell that to all of the former residents of Gush Katif that are now well within the Green Line), and that Hamas somehow was in support of Israel’s right to exist because of the Saudi’s
Snow-Job Peace Plan, which the Arab League ratified. Back then, the Palestinian representative was from Fatah, not Hamas. I’m glad that I got home before the show finished, because I might have blown a gasket.
Is Terri Gross a MOT? She sure seemed to be trying not to give Jimmy a puff-piece pass on some of his evasions and provocations.
So what motivates Jimmy Carter? Alan Dershowitz doesn’t go there, but he gives ol’ Carter a good Fisking. Well, it’s not a legacy issue, since he bagged his Nobel Prize with the Egypt-Israel peace accord. It’s not so much a secular Presidential legacy that he’s worried about, but more about the legacy of his immortal soul and his beliefs. He’s been an active Southern Baptist evangelical his entire life. These are the same fine folks who brought us ‘Jews for Jesus’, the Christians masquerading as Jews who go and prey on young, naive, or vulnerable Jews and try to convert them. Evil, evil, evil! Yes, bank-rolled by the Southern Baptists. So even though Jimmy split with the main Southern Baptist group in 2000, he still shares their general world-view, even if he differs with their implementation / approach. So, like his co-religionists, he views Jewish rule in Israel as a precursor to the second coming (did he come a first time?) of Jesus of Nazareth (JoN). But he differs in them with what that means. He seems to feel that Israel must create peace, at any cost, with her Arab neighbors, in order to secure the return of JoN. So, he reaches back into the old, familiar anti-Jewish sentiments that he was brought up with in the good ole’ south as a good ole’ Southern Baptist, and concluded that those knuckle-headed Jews have to fall in line, to stop holding up the return of JoN.
This is just my hunch. Please feel free to leave your own take on this.