Nobody wants to work with ex-Dem Presidents

[Gothampc]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 3:34pm

Jimmy Carter has already had 15 people resign because of his latest book.

Link

Updated On: 1/11/07 at 03:34 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 3:43pm

He wanted to provoke debate and instead of actually discussing the topic in earnest, many people chose to leave the table. Their loss. Who will history recall, Jimmy Carter or Steve Berman, real estate developer?

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 3:44pm

why does the title say Presidents...it only discusses one.

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 3:46pm

And look at the people who don't want to work with Bush and have resigned over the last two years. At least Jimmy is still not in office.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 3:48pm

"He wanted to provoke debate and instead of actually discussing the topic in earnest, many people chose to leave the table."

No he didn't. Alan Dershowitz has offered to debate him and Carter keeps refusing. Carter wanted to lecture everyone about his opinion on the Middle East, an opinion that he had a chance to implement in the late 1970s and which utterly failed.

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 3:56pm

Ok, honey--I didn't mean a LITERAL debate, I/he meant a national debate--and I'm not sure that refusing to debate Alan Dershowitz is a bad thing--I doubt Sunny or Nicole would think much of what Alan has to say.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 4:04pm

Poor Sunny. She still sleepin?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 4:11pm

um, if carter's not a dem anymore, then what is he?

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 4:20pm

This is what I'm always talking about people. It's not like Jimmy Carter doesn't have a point. If you listen to what he says or read what he writes maybe you could see how skewed things are in this country.

My biggest complaint is that it is taboo for ANYONE right or wrong to criticize Israeli policy in this country. Otherwise be blacklisted or tarred and feathered. If you read any Isreali newspaper, there is more of a critique than you will ever find here.

Every other country in the world can be criticized in the US, by politicians or on the news. Israel rarely if ever does. Carter is one of the few that has actually spoken up.

I'm not going to debate that is right or wrong in the conflict. I will debate that US has very little reasoning for involvement and if anything is endangering both Israelis and Palestinians.

If you don't believe me, watch and see how many news organizations actually investigate these new Iran allegations. This is the same reason they ate all that Iraq crap.

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 5:09pm

i think he meant dem ex-presidents...you know, like them thar hills

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 6:11pm

Nothing's more adorable than Goth aligning with Dershowitz.

Goth, are you still hoping the US can precipitate the Rapture thru its foreign policy? C'mon, you can be honest here, you're amongst friends.

Also, neither of the Bushes minded calling in Clinton to try to do a little image damage control after Katrina, did they? Please, Bill, rescue us again!

Updated On: 1/11/07 at 06:11 PM

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 6:33pm

^:)^

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 6:55pm

There was a great article in the Village Voice which I referenced all through the recent election about how Bill and Hillary wanted W to win. If Kerry won, Hillary would have been setback. She kinda laid-low last election. Bill however seemed to be gunnin for Bushie.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 9:44am

What a surprise? They are all Jewish.

Source! Updated On: 1/12/07 at 09:44 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 9:56am

wow, it just writes itself.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 10:15am

"Nothing's more adorable than Goth aligning with Dershowitz."

No alignment here. I just think it would be interesting to hear Dershowitz debate. I've read the Dershowitz articles on Israel over the years.

"Goth, are you still hoping the US can precipitate the Rapture thru its foreign policy?"

The Rapture is a fixed point in time. Nothing changes the exact second it happens.

"Also, neither of the Bushes minded calling in Clinton to try to do a little image damage control after Katrina, did they?"

Buh-buh-but Clinton? The Bushes aren't stupid. It was purely a photo-op to show that they are bi-partisan and to get some mileage off of Clinton's Global Action Network or whatever his "non-profit" is being called.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 10:20am

oh Goth, let it go......

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 10:46am

He never had it.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:02am

Goth, not only is any rapture talk bad exegesis of Matthew and Revelation, but your particular thought that the Rapture is an unchanging fixed time isn't even in line with pre-millenialist, dispensationalist, or any other brand of rapturist thought.

Updated On: 1/12/07 at 11:02 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:05am

m-o-u-s-e.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:09am

touch, I'm relying on the Thessalonians scripture. And on an Old Testament study of the Hebrew word "moed". But if you have a better exegesis, please feel free to share it.

"or any other brand of rapturist thought."

ETA: You better ask for your money back from Divinity School because there are different beliefs within each of the pre- during- and post- belief system

Updated On: 1/12/07 at 11:09 AM

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:19am

I think you should ask for your money back anyway.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:36am

What passage in Thes? I can only assume you mean 1 Thes. 4:13-18 (the "caught up" passage). I don't know too many theologians who would use that as a rapture passage...it is fairly plainly said that Christ comes back with trumpets and then, "after that" those who are left are "caught up" with him. Unless you've got a weird historical work around for the translations Americans read, I don't think you'll win this passage as an argument for a rapture. Now, perhaps you don't mean rapture...perhaps you just mean being caught up in the clouds with Christ -- a totally different story. But, from the words you're using, you're describing a mild case of pre-mil dispensationalism. Don't worry. It can be cured.

And, since you haven't given me more analysis than "and I studied "moed", I have to draw typical conclusions: I'm sure someone has convinced you that moed means some sort of celebration, and then somehow links that to the rapture. But, moed, for the Jewish people who would read the texts we now call Scripture, meant the second order of the mishnah -- not really a party at all -- let alone an end-of-time celebration or a war.

and, fyi, per-mil folks are the only ones who believe in a "rapture" like you're talking about. And, most people don't call themselves "during-mil", they call themselves "a-mil" -- which is VERY VERY different from "during".

But, the big question that you refuse to answer is how you see the rapture as a fixed date. At this point, I can only assume that you don't know why beyond some basic idea of God being unchanging. Perhaps, though, you just forgot to mention it. I'm open to hearing something specific for an answer beyong an appeal to God's unchanging nature. But, I'll bet that if you get yourself into your pre-mil studies, you'll find that pre-mil eschatology actually allows for and encourages change brought by social ills and social progress -- it is the only conclusion that makes epitemological sense for the pre-mil philosophy.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 12:16pm

"But, moed, for the Jewish people who would read the texts we now call Scripture, meant the second order of the mishnah"

Moed also means: a set, appointed or fixed time. God's way of operating on Earth is to work with set times. The Catching Away will be a moed.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 1/31/07 at 11:04am

Interesting read:

Israel’s Increased Isolation
MJ Rosenberg

Getting together with friends who travel in different circles is a good way to get beyond the usual bubble in which most of us live and hear views different from those of our regular crowd.

A few weeks ago about a dozen of us got together to discuss our kids, politics and anything else that came to mind. The people in the room were mostly non-Jews. They are well-educated, upper income and split along political lines.

I would not have thought of them as people who have strong feelings about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nor would I expect the subject to come up at all.

Nevertheless, I was asked my opinion of Jimmy Carter's book. I said that I didn't think it broke any new ground and that I disagreed with much of it, but added that I did not think it merited the controversy that surrounds it. Carter is entitled to his views which, considering who he is, are worth hearing.

Well, that opened the floodgates.

It turned out that the others in the room had strong feelings about the Carter book controversy and the prevalent one was "what's the big deal." Some agreed with Carter's thesis. Some didn't. But none thought that it made any sense for the Jewish community to make such a brouhaha over a book simply because it is critical of Israel and has a provocative title.

Not one thought Carter was out of line. They thought the community was out of line for getting "bent out of shape" by a book. "He's a former President. He is entitled to say what he believes about any issue, let alone an issue relating to United States policy," one said as everyone agreed.

This discussion led to a larger one that became very interesting. If this sample of Americans is at all representative, non-Jewish Americans feel very inhibited about talking about Israel out of fear that any criticism will be labeled "anti-Semitism."

One said that the only times he will say what he thinks is if "there is a Jewish person in the room who makes the criticism first. Then I am free to chime in so long as the Jewish guy carries the ball."

If there was one position shared by every person in the group it was that the United States should push hard for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. "I'd lock them in a room and not let them out until Palestinians agree to fully accept Israel and Israel guarantees Palestinian rights. I'd do that not only for the sake of Israelis and Palestinians but to help immunize America against blow-back from that war."

It quickly became obvious that the days when Americans had only warm, sentimental and uncomplicated feelings about Israel are over. Israel is part of the Middle East problem and, as such, it evokes more anxiety than admiration. Contrary to Binyamin Netanyahu's suggestion that 9/11 turned Americans into Israelis, 9/11 made Americans realize that while they sympathize with Israel, they do not want the United States to become Israel.

Yes, the polls show strong support for Israel. But the polls tend to simply ask if Americans are more supportive of Israelis or Arabs. Not surprisingly, the Israelis win. But that means very little especially after 9/11. Polls which probe more deeply show that support for Israel, such as there is, is broad but it is not very deep.

This phenomenon can be seen almost every day in "Letters to the Editors" columns. Every time an op-ed about Israel appears, especially if it is critical, there are a slew of letters to the editor. Most support the Israeli position. And almost without exception, they are written by Jews. That vast majority out there which supposedly is so supportive of Israel virtually never chimes in. It's just the usual suspects putting out their robotic rhetoric.

Shmuel Rosner, the estimable Ha’aretz correspondent, noted this week that it is telling that every significant critic of Carter’s book is Jewish, concluding that Jews are increasingly isolated on matters relating to Israel.

At the Herzliyah conference last week, the most prestigious strategy and policy conference in Israel, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said that “Israel must be prepared to lose American support in the coming years, both diplomatically and economically.” His advice to Israel was to “go it alone” (exactly how, he did not say). Robert Satloff, who runs the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, is so concerned that he advised Israel to look for alliances with Sunni Arab states like Saudi Arabia while predictably (and incredibly) adding that he doesn’t “buy that Israel needs to make peace with the Palestinians” to establish that alliance!

In other words, those who are less than enthusiastic about Israel negotiating with the Palestinians are becoming reconciled to an Israel ever more isolated as the occupation goes into its 41st year.

The occupation is defining Israel.

For those of us who care deeply about Israel, this is not good news. There are so many things in Israel that Americans would admire if they knew about them. But the occupation obscures much of that, especially when those of us in the pro-Israel community act as if criticizing the occupation is the same as criticizing Israel.

This is not something we American supporters of Israel can easily change. The pro-Israel community here cannot end the occupation there, even if it is eroding American support for the Jewish state. We are not Israelis; Israeli policies are determined by Israelis.

But there are things we can do that will strengthen Israel here in the United States. We can support vigorous US diplomacy to help end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even if US intervention does not succeed (it is the parties, after all, who have to accept any peace deal), Americans want to see our country playing the role of honest broker.

The other thing we can do that will help is to dial back our stridency when Israeli policies are criticized. One thing I am repeatedly asked is "why can't Americans freely debate these issues the way Israelis do?"

Israel's free-wheeling debate on policy issues is one aspect of Israeli life that Americans admire. The attempts to limit debate here (like the woefully misguided insistence that Alan Dershowitz be given equal billing with President Carter at Brandeis) only hurt Israel's image.

And to what end? Ultimately, President Carter went to Brandeis, received a standing ovation from the students and told them that he would make sure that a passage in his book that seems to justify terrorism in certain instances will be removed from future editions. Dershowitz, whose appearance was insisted on by those who thought Brandeis kids could not handle Carter's critique, spoke after Carter left and conceded that Carter's speech was okay. "I wish President Carter and I could work together to bring about peace," he said. "We're not that far apart. We are both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine."

Give Dershowitz credit. He recognizes that these days to be pro-Israel, you have to be pro-Palestine, too.

This is especially true on campus where pro-Israel students are most effective when they support both Israel and ending the occupation.

Those who care about Israel and want Americans of all creeds to care about it too, have to do our part to raise our voices so that Americans do not come to believe that the enforcers of Mideast political orthodoxy represent anything other than a sliver of pro-Israel opinion. Those who believe they are helping Israel by shouting down any and all opposition to counterproductive Israeli policies are not helping Israel at all. They are simply building resentment within the body politic of the one nation in the world which Israel needs to survive.

Overreacting to criticism is good for organizational fundraising and for getting on Fox News. But that is all its good for. It’s not good for the Jews. And it’s certainly not good for Israel or America.


Source: