"The US and Israel stand alone"

[mpohl 1]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - August 15, 2006, 12:51 PM
URL: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,431793,00.html

SPIEGEL Interview with Jimmy Carter

"The US and Israel Stand Alone"

Former US president Jimmy Carter speaks with DER SPIEGEL about the danger posed to American values by George W. Bush, the difficult situation in the Middle East and Cuba's ailing Fidel Castro.

Former US president Jimmy Carter: "I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon."

SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, in your new book you write that only the American people can ensure that the US government returns to the country's old moral principles. Are you suggesting that the current US administration of George W. Bush of acting immorally?

Carter: There's no doubt that this administration has made a radical and unpressured departure from the basic policies of all previous administrations including those of both Republican and Democratic presidents.

SPIEGEL: For example?

Carter: Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis. Another very serious departure from past policies is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible with this. The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.

SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?

Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.

SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?

Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.

SPIEGEL: Do you think the United States is still an important factor in securing a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis?

Carter: Yes, as a matter of fact as you know ever since Israel has been a nation the United States has provided the leadership. Every president down to the ages has done this in a fairly balanced way, including George Bush senior, Gerald Ford, and others including myself and Bill Clinton. This administration has not attempted at all in the last six years to negotiate or attempt to negotiate a settlement between Israel and any of its neighbors or the Palestinians.

SPIEGEL: What makes you personally so optimistic about the effectiveness of diplomacy? You are, so to speak, the father of Camp David negotiations.

Carter: When I became president we had had four terrible wars between the Arabs and Israelis (behind us). And I under great difficulty, particularly because Menachim Begin was elected, decided to try negotiation and it worked and we have a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt for 27 years that has never been violated. You never can be certain in advance that negotiations on difficult circumstances will be successful, but you can be certain in advance if you don't negotiate that your problem is going to continue and maybe even get worse.

SPIEGEL: But negotiations failed to prevent the burning of Beirut and bombardment of Haifa.

Carter: I'm distressed. But I think that the proposals that have been made in the last few days by the (Lebanese) Prime Minister (Fuoad) Siniora are quite reasonable. And I think they should declare an immediate cease-fire on both sides, Hezbollah said they would comply, I hope Israel will comply, and then do the long, slow, tedious negotiation that is necessary to stabilize the northern border of Israel completely. There has to be some exchange of prisoners. There have been successful exchanges of prisoners between Israel and the Palestinians in the past and that's something that can be done right now.

SPIEGEL: Should there be an international peacekeeping force along the Lebanese-Israeli border?

Carter: Yes.

SPIEGEL: And can you imagine Germans soldiers taking part?

Carter: Yes, I can imagine Germans taking part.

SPIEGEL: ... even with their history?

Carter: Yes. That would be certainly satisfactory to me personally, and I think most people believe that enough time has passed so that historical facts can be ignored.

SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib and torture in Guantanamo?

Carter: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them -- which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made.

SPIEGEL: So how does this proximity to Christian fundamentalism manifest itself politically?



Carter: Unfortunately, after Sept., there was an outburst in America of intense suffering and patriotism, and the Bush administration was very shrewd and effective in painting anyone who disagreed with the policies as unpatriotic or even traitorous. For three years, I'd say, the major news media in our country were complicit in this subservience to the Bush administration out of fear that they would be accused of being disloyal. I think in the last six months or so some of the media have now begun to be critical. But it's a long time coming.

SPIEGEL: Take your fellow Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton. These days she is demanding the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But she, like many others, allowed President Bush to invade Iraq under a false pretext.

Carter: That's correct.

SPIEGEL: Was the whole country in danger of losing its core values?

Carter: For a while, yes. As you possibly know, historically, our country has had the capability of self-correcting our own mistakes. This applied to slavery in 1865, it applied to legal racial segregation a hundred years later or so. It applied to the Joe McCarthy era when anti-communism was in a fearsome phase in the country like terrorism now. So we have an ability to correct ourselves and I believe that nowadays there is a self-correction taking place. In my opinion the election results in Connecticut (Eds: The primary loss of war supporter Senator Joseph Lieberman) were an indication that Americans realized very clearly that we made a mistake in going into Iraq and staying there too long.

SPIEGEL: Now even President Bush appears to have learned something from the catastrophe in Iraq. During his second term he has taken a more multilateral approach and has seemed to return to international cooperation.

Carter: I think the administration learned a lesson, but I don't see any indication that the administration would ever admit that it did make a mistake and needed to learn a lesson. I haven't seen much indication, by the way, of your premise that this administration is now reconciling itself to other countries. I think that at this moment the United States and Israel probably stand more alone than our country has in generations.

SPIEGEL: You've written about your meeting with Fidel Castro. He appears seriously ill now and Cuban exiles are partying already in the streets of Miami. You are probably not in the mood to join them.

Carter: No, that's true. Just because someone is ill I don't think there should be a celebration of potential death. And my own belief is that Fidel Castro will recover. He is two years younger than I am, so he's not beyond hope.


Carter: In my opinion, the embargo strengthens Castro and perpetuates communism in Cuba. A maximum degree of trade, tourism, commerce, visitation between our country and Cuba would bring an earlier end to Castro's regime.

SPIEGEL: You've been called the moral conscience of your country. How do you look at it yourself? Are you an outsider in American politics these days or do you represent a political demographic that could maybe elect the next US president?

Carter: I think I represent the vast majority of Democrats in this country. I think there is a substantial portion of American people that completely agree with me. I can't say a majority because we have fragmented portions in our country and divisions concerning gun control and the death penalty and abortion and gay marriage.

SPIEGEL: As president, your performance was often criticized. But the work you did after leaving office to promote human rights has been widely praised. Has life been unfair to you?

Carter: I've been lucky in my life. Everything that I've done has brought great pleasure and gratification to me and my wife. I had four years in the White House -- it was not a failure. For someone to serve as president of the United States you can't say it is a political failure. And we have had the best years of our lives since we left the White House. We've had a very full life.

SPIEGEL: Do you feel you achieved even more out of office than you did as president?

Carter: Well, I've used the prestige and influence of having been a president of the United States as effectively as possible. And secondly, I've still been able to carry out my commitments to peace and human rights and environmental quality and freedom and democracy and so forth.

SPIEGEL: Does America need a regime change?

Carter: As I've said before, there is a self-corrective aspect to our country. And I think that the first step is going to be in the November election this year. This year, the Democrats have good chance of capturing one of the houses of Congress. I think the Senate is going to be a very close decision. My oldest son is running for the US Senate in the state of Nevada. And if just he and a few others can be successful then you have the US Senate in Democratic hands and that will make a profound and immediate difference.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, thank you for the interview.

[StreetScooby 5]

Interesting read. Thanks for posting this.

We are all engines of karma

[Gawain 0]

Very interesting interview. I wish Carter would stay out of the political scene. His last big peace deal, before the hostage crisis, resulted in the assassination of a head of state.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,111]

>His last big peace deal, before the hostage crisis, resulted in the assassination of a head of state.

If it resulted in only one death - then it went better than 90% of the peace deals ever brokered.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>His last big peace deal, before the hostage crisis, resulted in the assassination of a head of state.

If it resulted in only one death - then it went better than 90% of the peace deals ever brokered.

Gee whiz...that wasn't what I meant.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[mpohl 1]

I am encouraged that it took multiple hours for this kind of comment to appear. May I ask for the poster's qualifications to comment in such a way on a former President and Noble Peace Prize Winner, widely regarded in the international community as the ONLY American (besides Bill Clinton) to have any moral autorithy.

Please share your CV.

Quote

Very interesting interview. I wish Carter would stay out of the political scene. His last big peace deal, before the hostage crisis, resulted in the assassination of a head of state.

[downwardspiral 0]

moral authority AND Bill Clinton in the same sentence? Now that's funny. I don't care who you are.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Very interesting interview. I wish Carter would stay out of the political scene. His last big peace deal, before the hostage crisis, resulted in the assassination of a head of state.

You aren't serious in applying blame for this to Carter, are you?

It's nice reading an interview with a President who doesn't sound retarded or like a weasel (BC). You can disagree with the man on policy, but he's no idiot.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

Very interesting interview. I wish Carter would stay out of the political scene...

... a President who doesn't sound retarded or like a weasel... You can disagree with the man on policy, but he's no idiot.

Carter was a very underrated President. Remember that he came directly after Nixon (& the caretaker). He did a couple of embarrassing things, like his policy towards Cuban Emigres which could have been better thought out, but he also did some good stuff. Remember that HE was the one who cleaned up Defense and began the increases in their budget to make them an effective force again. In this case, Reagan only continued & accellerated the work begun by Carter.

Whether you like or loathe his stance on an issue, no-one can deny his intelligence, honesty & principle. These arre rare qualities in our current crop of leaders & candidates.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Very interesting interview. I wish Carter would stay out of the political scene. His last big peace deal, before the hostage crisis, resulted in the assassination of a head of state.

You aren't serious in applying blame for this to Carter, are you?

It's nice reading an interview with a President who doesn't sound retarded or like a weasel (BC). You can disagree with the man on policy, but he's no idiot.

This is more than a disagreement on policy. President Carter was a near total failure as a leader of this country. Is that plain enough?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[miked10270 0]

Quote

This is more than a disagreement on policy. President Carter was a near total failure as a leader of this country. Is that plain enough?

Carter's presidency occurred at the nadir of America's political and military credibility. OK, he didn't do anything amazingly obvious to change that, but what he did was to set the stage for Reagan's successes and the return of America's military & political credibility.

Bear in mind that it was Carter who showed the true state of American Military competence... AND started to fix it! Reagan only continued and accellerated what Carter had begun.

Carter also restored faith in the Presidency & administration after the Nixon debacle.

It's a mark of the man's true competence & worth that, even now, his counsel is still sought.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

This is more than a disagreement on policy. President Carter was a near total failure as a leader of this country. Is that plain enough?

Carter's presidency occurred at the nadir of America's political and military credibility. OK, he didn't do anything amazingly obvious to change that, but what he did was to set the stage for Reagan's successes and the return of America's military & political credibility.

Bear in mind that it was Carter who showed the true state of American Military competence... AND started to fix it! Reagan only continued and accellerated what Carter had begun.

Carter also restored faith in the Presidency & administration after the Nixon debacle.

It's a mark of the man's true competence & worth that, even now, his counsel is still sought.

Mike.

I wonder who will seek GWB's counsel in 20 years time?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I wonder who will seek GWB's counsel in 20 years time?

defence lobby groups wondering if he can help them return to the haydays of the early 2000's.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

I wonder who will seek GWB's counsel in 20 years time?

Perhaps a new arrival at The Fletcher Memorial Home?
Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[billvon 3,111]

>President Carter was a near total failure as a leader of this country.

Carter didn't get us into any wars. For that he gets a lot of credit in my book. Successfully avoiding the worst thing humanity has created is a critical skill that many other leaders lack.

[TheAnvil 0]

How disappointing that a former President would make such erroneous statements:

- Israel has not bombed the entire nation of Lebanon. Mr. Carter is either lying or ignorant of the facts.

- His comments about the tax system are simply not in line with reality. The rich paid the most taxes prior to the tax cuts. They still do today.

- Israel's attack on Lebanon is unjustified according to Mr. Carter. Like many opponents of Israel's action, he fails to state what they should have done. Probably because there is no good answer.

- Mr. Carter states that Israel is attacking the civilian populace of Lebanon and Gaza. The Israelis were attacking Hezbollah guerillas embedded into the civilian populace. Warnings were given to the civilian populace as well.

- Mr. Carter states that Israel holds over 10,000 prisoners, yet fails to state why they are imprisoned. If he had his facts in order, he could have done so and driven home his point. He didn't.

- This statement makes me chuckle on many levels: This administration has not attempted at all in the last six years to negotiate or attempt to negotiate a settlement between Israel and any of its neighbors or the Palestinians. Negotiate w/Hamas, eh, Mr. Carter? I believe non-negotiation with terrorist organizations to be a good policy, myself. If you don't...

- Carter, like many Dems these days (though not all), alludes to a Fundamentalist Christian symbiosis with the Republican party. If this were true then there wouldn't be any pro-choice republicans (there are) or gay republicans (Yep! They exist too!) or any Catholic republicans either (got those in droves). That symbiosis doesn't exist, though it proves useful to Dems to promote such a deception. Those with below-average-intellect might actually believe it.

- This ticks me off: 'when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib'. I challenge Mr. Carter or anyone to find one member of the Bush administration who condoned the Abu Ghraib abuses, ordered such abuses, or praised such abuses. Permit indeed. Blatant falsehood and Mr. Carter is far too smart a fellow not to know better. Disgusting in all regards. His inference to Fundamentalist Christian acceptance of the Abu Ghraib abuses is bigoted and incorrect. Such abuse goes against any Christian doctrine - fundamentalist, moderate, or whatever. Like the Funamentalist Christian symbiosis lie, it seems that many Dems love to bring up Abu Ghraib and infer the Republicans had something to do with it. It's a lie, they know it, and are cowards for hiding behind it. Period.

- This little blurb shows a bit:

SPIEGEL: Take your fellow Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton. These days she is demanding the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But she, like many others, allowed President Bush to invade Iraq under a false pretext.

Carter: That's correct.

It's incorrect, and Mr. Carter knows it. Did Mr. Carter allow the hostage rescue attempt to proceed in the Iranian hostage crisis knowing the sandstorms and technical problems would doom the mission? No - he did so based upon the best intel/predictions available. That proved false - just like much of the pre-Iraq invasion intel.

Mrs. Clinton and almost every other member of Congress, Republican & Democrat alike failed to DO THEIR JOBS and read the intelligence available to them. Had they done so, perhaps the pre-war discourse would have been far more robust and more people would have been against it.

- I agree w/Mr. Carter that trade and travel between Cuba and the US would bring down communism there faster than anything. We should have ended the embargo long ago.

All in all, a most disgusting interview.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Democrats:

Quote

It's a lie, they know it, and are cowards for hiding behind it. Period.

Republicans:

Quote

No - he did so based upon the best intel/predictions available. That proved false - just like much of the pre-Iraq invasion intel.

Guess we know where your political alliances are.

[TheAnvil 0]

Let go of your hate and read. Bad intel does not equate to lying. Deal with it. Hating GWB won't make him go away.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>President Carter was a near total failure as a leader of this country.

Carter didn't get us into any wars. For that he gets a lot of credit in my book. Successfully avoiding the worst thing humanity has created is a critical skill that many other leaders lack.

He also ran the smallest deficit in modern times up until the Clinton surplus. Certainly the short term economy improved when Reagan piled on the pork spending, but at quite a cost on the debt.

And I'm quite sure he wasn't responsible for Sadat's assassination.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Bad intel does not equate to lying

Saying something that has not been proven or more importantly, cannot be proven also does not equate to lying. However, in your case when a Dem does that you call it lying, when a Rep does it you call it either bad intel or you all of a sudden reverse the burdon of proof.

I don't hate GW, I actually think he is too stupid to realize what is going on. I feel sorry for him and I feel sorry for Americans that they have to deal with a president who can't coherently put one sentence together when left by himself. Lastly, I feel sorry for your service men and their families, dying in a war that was a personal mission for GW and a war they will never be able to win.

[billvon 3,111]

>I challenge Mr. Carter or anyone to find one member of the
>Bush administration who condoned the Abu Ghraib abuses, ordered
>such abuses, or praised such abuses.

Ashcroft produced memorandums redefining torture as things that caused "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." In other words, holding someone underwater until they passed out is NOT torture unless it causes organ failure or death.

A recent memorandum by administration lawyers concluded that the Convention Against Torture (and its enforcement by criminal statute) did not apply to actions taken against non-Americans outside the United States--for example, the torture and killing of Manadel al-Jamadi in Abu Ghraib by the CIA.

So we have clear evidence that the administration produces legal opinions that allow US troops to torture without fear of reprisal.

>It's a lie, they know it, and are cowards for hiding behind it. Period.

Unfortunately, the actual documents produced by the administration do not bear that claim out. Carter was right in bringing it up; it is a serious problem, and we are seeing the results of those memorandums (the torture and killing of dozens of prisoners.)

You can play word games all day with lawyer's decisions. You can't hide dead bodies. (Well, they've tried, but it often doesn't work.)

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

So we have clear evidence that the administration produces legal opinions that allow US troops to torture without fear of reprisal.

I'm sure the soldiers convicted of the Abu Ghraib abuses would disagree with you. The Army officer who went on trial for shooting a gun in the interrogation of a prisoner would also disagree with you.

Face it, Bill. You know why the memos you refer to were written. You also know why Mr. Carter brought up Abu Ghraib in that interview. Utterly disgusting.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

So we have clear evidence that the administration produces legal opinions that allow US troops to torture without fear of reprisal.

I'm sure the soldiers convicted of the Abu Ghraib abuses would disagree with you. The Army officer who went on trial for shooting a gun in the interrogation of a prisoner would also disagree with you.

Exceptions to the rule.

Surely it's commonly accepted that these soldiers WERE NOT doing this on their own initiative. They were acting under sanction, but were convicted of "Being a Public-Relations Embarrassment" ONCE details of their actions escaped into the public domain.

How many others have been convicted? Have ANY military personel been convicted or prosecuted by the military BEFORE details of their actions have become public?

In the meantime, the Administration is busy "moving the goalposts" (and making them a lot smaller while they're at it)!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[billvon 3,111]

>I'm sure the soldiers convicted of the Abu Ghraib abuses would disagree with you.

It is fortunate that the administration's attempts to legalize similar abuses failed, then.

>Face it, Bill. You know why the memos you refer to were written.

To insulate themselves from the legal consequences of torturing prisoners.

>You also know why Mr. Carter brought up Abu Ghraib in that interview.

Because torture (in any form, even the non-fatal forms we condone) is abhorrent to him, as it is to me. In this respect he disagrees with the current pro-torture administration, which is a valid comment. I do too.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

- Israel has not bombed the entire nation of Lebanon. Mr. Carter is either lying or ignorant of the facts.

Nope. There's plenty of documentation to show that when the press refers to "the destruction of most of Hezbollah's infrastructure that they acutally mean Lebanon's infrastructure. Practically every bridge and road has been blown up along with an oil refinery, all of the runways at the airport, whole neighborhoods, radio/TV stations/antennas....pretty much everything.



- Mr. Carter states that Israel holds over 10,000 prisoners, yet fails to state why they are imprisoned. If he had his facts in order, he could have done so and driven home his point. He didn't.

Many of them are "administrative prisoners". They are arrested without charge and Israel can legally hold them for up to six months, at which point their status is renewed and they're held for another six months without charge. Some UN resolutions apply here.
Sorry, but I don't have time to get to any more this morning. I thought it was a good interview. Carter's the only thing we have right now that even remotely resembles a diplomat.