January 2, 2025
MONDOWEISS
MONDOWEISS
President Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter, the 39th U.S. President, is dead at the age of 100.
Carter didn’t spend his post-presidency painting dogs or releasing playlists. He worked with Habitat for Humanity International, pushed diplomacy, and advocated for human rights. He wasn’t afraid to criticize fellow presidents. Clinton for pardoning Marc Rich. Bush for the war on Iraq. Obama for drone strikes. Trump for appointing John Bolton as national security adviser.
He also wasn’t afraid to commend official state enemies, identifying Venezuela’s 2012 electoral process as one of the best in the world.
At some point liberals began using Carter’s exemplary post-presidency model as a means to reimagine his White House years as unfairly maligned. A tragic moment of thwarted progressive hope. “The Conventional Wisdom About Jimmy Carter Is Wrong,” declares the headline of a New Republic piece from Jonathan Alter, who wrote a biography of Carter in 2020. “I concluded that his presidency was flawed but underrated, and his post-presidency was inspiring and pathbreaking but a tad overrated,” writes Alter.
Alter’s most ridiculous suggestion involves Carter’s economic record. “He eventually appointed Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Volcker imposed harsh medicine that ended inflation—after Ronald Reagan crushed Carter in 1980,” he writes. Alter doesn’t mention that the “harsh medicine” destroyed U.S. industry while ushering in neoliberalism and effectively moving modern Democrats away from the policies of the New Deal. Deregulation, privatization, capital hoarding, supply-side economics, “zero-based budgeting.” Staples of the Carter years, the first bricks laid for Reagan’s Revolution, and the antecedents for the Democratic Leadership Council.
Foreign policy? By the standards of the Nuremberg Principles he was a war criminal, just like every other post-war president. He backed authoritarian leaders, like Ferdinand Marcos and the Shah. He stepped up military aid to Indonesia, which had invaded East Timor about a year before his presidency began. Around 200,000 people had been slaughtered there by the time he left office. Behind the scenes his administration supported General Chun Doo Hwan’s coup d’état in South Korea. He sent millions to the murderous junta in El Salvador. He signed the first directive to supply the secret aid to the mujahideen in Afghanistan. When his National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski was asked whether he ever had second thoughts about the move in 1998 he responded: “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea.” A few years later the World Trade Center was attacked.
That’s the disclaimer, but the focus of this newsletter is a book that Carter wrote in 2006. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid might pull some of its punches and it contains some errors, but it was a watershed moment when we talk about the perception of Israel within the United States. In the book Carter describes the expansion of Israeli settlements over the course of three decades and documents the toll of that these policies had on Palestinians.
These criticisms seem pretty basic now, as mainstream human rights organizations, and even some Democratic lawmakers, openly use the word “apartheid.” However, things were quite different in the mid-2000s, when the question of Palestine was still viewed as an open debate by some on the left. This fact is even more pronounced among the Democratic base. A Gallup poll released shortly before the book was published shows just 16% of Democratic voters sympathizing with Palestinians. Now that number hovers around 50%.
Most importantly, he used the word “apartheid” to describe what Israel was doing in Palestine. He even put it in the title, openly inviting a dialogue before many people had even read the book.
The backlash to Carter’s book began weeks before its release with members of his own party scrambling to distance themselves from the work. “It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously,” declared Nancy Pelosi.
“With all due respect to former President Carter, he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel,” she added later. “Democrats have been steadfast in their support of Israel from its birth, in part because we recognize that to do so is in the national security interests of the United States. We stand with Israel now and we stand with Israel forever.”
Bill Clinton sent a handwritten note to American Jewish Council (AJC) Executive Director David Harris expressing his appreciation for the AJC’s attacks on the book. “I don’t know where his information (or conclusions) come from but Dennis Ross has tried to straighten it out, publicly and in two letters to him. At any rate, I’m grateful,” he wrote.
“While I have tremendous respect for former President Carter, I fundamentally disagree and do not support his analysis of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” said then Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, “On this issue President Carter speaks for himself, the opinions in his book are his own, they are not the views or position of the Democratic Party. I and other Democrats will continue to stand with Israel in its battle against terrorism and for a lasting peace with its neighbors.”
The book was disparaged across the mainstream press.
The New York Times called it a “distortion.” In the Washington Post Michael Kinsley wrote that the comparison between Israel and South Africa was “foolish” and “unfair.” The Economist deemed Carter’s argument “weak,” simplistic,” and “one-sided.”
After his death, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) praised Carter for “his extraordinary dedication to those in need,” but when his book was published the ADL’s former national director Abe Foxman denounced Carter as a “bigot” who was “engaging in antisemitism.” The organization even took out newspaper ads attacking the book.
The hysteria over Carter’s commonsense observations has largely been scrubbed from the remembrances.
The New York Times notes that the “former president was annoyed at being left off the program of live speakers at Mr. Obama’s nominating convention in 2008,” but neglects to mention that Carter was snubbed in response to pressure from Alan Dershowitz.
The New York Times also published an essay by Samatha Power on Carter’s commitment to human rights [insert joke here] but conveniently leaves out his biggest contribution: the book that deeply upset the U.S. political establishment.
An admirable post-presidency certainly doesn’t undo the crimes of an administration, but the bar for this kind of stuff is incredibly low. Carter ignited a discussion about the treatment of Palestinians in the mainstream. I think we can safely say that we will never see a comparable move from Clinton, Obama, or Biden.
Biden pushed for retraction of famine report
I mentioned Samantha Power in the previous section. Now let’s take a look at the agency she runs, USAID.
USAID funds the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) and couple days before Christmas, FEWS NET put out a report sounding the alarm over a famine in Northern Gaza.
“It is highly likely that the food consumption and acute malnutrition thresholds for famine… have now been surpassed in North Gaza Governorate,” it reads.
This development is bad for Israel’s public image, as the Netanyahu government has repeatedly insisted that it is fighting a war against Hamas, but not Gaza’s civilian population.
The Biden administration quickly moved to remedy this dilemma. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jacob Lew put out a statement criticizing FEWS NET’s findings:
The report issued today on Gaza by FEWS NET relies on data that is outdated and inaccurate. We have worked closely with the Government of Israel and the UN to provide greater access to the North Governorate, and it is now apparent that the civilian population in that part of Gaza is in the range of 7,000-15,000, not 65,000-75,000 which is the basis of this report.
COGAT estimates the population in this area is between 5,000 and 9,000. UNRWA estimates the population is between 10,000 and 15,000.
At a time when inaccurate information is causing confusion and accusations, it is irresponsible to issue a report like this. We work day and night with the UN and our Israeli partners to meet humanitarian needs — which are great — and relying on inaccurate data is irresponsible.
This is an incredible defense, as Lew is essentially saying, “There can’t be a massive famine in this part of Gaza because Israel has already ethnically cleansed the area.”
The White House’s intervention worked. The group retracted the report and said it will release an updated one in January.
This isn’t especially surprising, as the U.S. government funds the organization. However, it clearly demonstrates how “rules-based order” of international relations is a pile of rubbish.
The U.S. government has a number of offices that are supposed to assess human rights issues and prescribe remedies, but they are not allowed to function in a way that would actually alleviate suffering.
Jimmy Carter, the 39th U.S. President, is dead at the age of 100.
Carter didn’t spend his post-presidency painting dogs or releasing playlists. He worked with Habitat for Humanity International, pushed diplomacy, and advocated for human rights. He wasn’t afraid to criticize fellow presidents. Clinton for pardoning Marc Rich. Bush for the war on Iraq. Obama for drone strikes. Trump for appointing John Bolton as national security adviser.
He also wasn’t afraid to commend official state enemies, identifying Venezuela’s 2012 electoral process as one of the best in the world.
At some point liberals began using Carter’s exemplary post-presidency model as a means to reimagine his White House years as unfairly maligned. A tragic moment of thwarted progressive hope. “The Conventional Wisdom About Jimmy Carter Is Wrong,” declares the headline of a New Republic piece from Jonathan Alter, who wrote a biography of Carter in 2020. “I concluded that his presidency was flawed but underrated, and his post-presidency was inspiring and pathbreaking but a tad overrated,” writes Alter.
Alter’s most ridiculous suggestion involves Carter’s economic record. “He eventually appointed Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Volcker imposed harsh medicine that ended inflation—after Ronald Reagan crushed Carter in 1980,” he writes. Alter doesn’t mention that the “harsh medicine” destroyed U.S. industry while ushering in neoliberalism and effectively moving modern Democrats away from the policies of the New Deal. Deregulation, privatization, capital hoarding, supply-side economics, “zero-based budgeting.” Staples of the Carter years, the first bricks laid for Reagan’s Revolution, and the antecedents for the Democratic Leadership Council.
Foreign policy? By the standards of the Nuremberg Principles he was a war criminal, just like every other post-war president. He backed authoritarian leaders, like Ferdinand Marcos and the Shah. He stepped up military aid to Indonesia, which had invaded East Timor about a year before his presidency began. Around 200,000 people had been slaughtered there by the time he left office. Behind the scenes his administration supported General Chun Doo Hwan’s coup d’état in South Korea. He sent millions to the murderous junta in El Salvador. He signed the first directive to supply the secret aid to the mujahideen in Afghanistan. When his National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski was asked whether he ever had second thoughts about the move in 1998 he responded: “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea.” A few years later the World Trade Center was attacked.
That’s the disclaimer, but the focus of this newsletter is a book that Carter wrote in 2006. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid might pull some of its punches and it contains some errors, but it was a watershed moment when we talk about the perception of Israel within the United States. In the book Carter describes the expansion of Israeli settlements over the course of three decades and documents the toll of that these policies had on Palestinians.
These criticisms seem pretty basic now, as mainstream human rights organizations, and even some Democratic lawmakers, openly use the word “apartheid.” However, things were quite different in the mid-2000s, when the question of Palestine was still viewed as an open debate by some on the left. This fact is even more pronounced among the Democratic base. A Gallup poll released shortly before the book was published shows just 16% of Democratic voters sympathizing with Palestinians. Now that number hovers around 50%.
Most importantly, he used the word “apartheid” to describe what Israel was doing in Palestine. He even put it in the title, openly inviting a dialogue before many people had even read the book.
The backlash to Carter’s book began weeks before its release with members of his own party scrambling to distance themselves from the work. “It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously,” declared Nancy Pelosi.
“With all due respect to former President Carter, he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel,” she added later. “Democrats have been steadfast in their support of Israel from its birth, in part because we recognize that to do so is in the national security interests of the United States. We stand with Israel now and we stand with Israel forever.”
Bill Clinton sent a handwritten note to American Jewish Council (AJC) Executive Director David Harris expressing his appreciation for the AJC’s attacks on the book. “I don’t know where his information (or conclusions) come from but Dennis Ross has tried to straighten it out, publicly and in two letters to him. At any rate, I’m grateful,” he wrote.
“While I have tremendous respect for former President Carter, I fundamentally disagree and do not support his analysis of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” said then Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, “On this issue President Carter speaks for himself, the opinions in his book are his own, they are not the views or position of the Democratic Party. I and other Democrats will continue to stand with Israel in its battle against terrorism and for a lasting peace with its neighbors.”
The book was disparaged across the mainstream press.
The New York Times called it a “distortion.” In the Washington Post Michael Kinsley wrote that the comparison between Israel and South Africa was “foolish” and “unfair.” The Economist deemed Carter’s argument “weak,” simplistic,” and “one-sided.”
After his death, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) praised Carter for “his extraordinary dedication to those in need,” but when his book was published the ADL’s former national director Abe Foxman denounced Carter as a “bigot” who was “engaging in antisemitism.” The organization even took out newspaper ads attacking the book.
The hysteria over Carter’s commonsense observations has largely been scrubbed from the remembrances.
The New York Times notes that the “former president was annoyed at being left off the program of live speakers at Mr. Obama’s nominating convention in 2008,” but neglects to mention that Carter was snubbed in response to pressure from Alan Dershowitz.
The New York Times also published an essay by Samatha Power on Carter’s commitment to human rights [insert joke here] but conveniently leaves out his biggest contribution: the book that deeply upset the U.S. political establishment.
An admirable post-presidency certainly doesn’t undo the crimes of an administration, but the bar for this kind of stuff is incredibly low. Carter ignited a discussion about the treatment of Palestinians in the mainstream. I think we can safely say that we will never see a comparable move from Clinton, Obama, or Biden.
Biden pushed for retraction of famine report
I mentioned Samantha Power in the previous section. Now let’s take a look at the agency she runs, USAID.
USAID funds the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) and couple days before Christmas, FEWS NET put out a report sounding the alarm over a famine in Northern Gaza.
“It is highly likely that the food consumption and acute malnutrition thresholds for famine… have now been surpassed in North Gaza Governorate,” it reads.
This development is bad for Israel’s public image, as the Netanyahu government has repeatedly insisted that it is fighting a war against Hamas, but not Gaza’s civilian population.
The Biden administration quickly moved to remedy this dilemma. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jacob Lew put out a statement criticizing FEWS NET’s findings:
The report issued today on Gaza by FEWS NET relies on data that is outdated and inaccurate. We have worked closely with the Government of Israel and the UN to provide greater access to the North Governorate, and it is now apparent that the civilian population in that part of Gaza is in the range of 7,000-15,000, not 65,000-75,000 which is the basis of this report.
COGAT estimates the population in this area is between 5,000 and 9,000. UNRWA estimates the population is between 10,000 and 15,000.
At a time when inaccurate information is causing confusion and accusations, it is irresponsible to issue a report like this. We work day and night with the UN and our Israeli partners to meet humanitarian needs — which are great — and relying on inaccurate data is irresponsible.
This is an incredible defense, as Lew is essentially saying, “There can’t be a massive famine in this part of Gaza because Israel has already ethnically cleansed the area.”
The White House’s intervention worked. The group retracted the report and said it will release an updated one in January.
This isn’t especially surprising, as the U.S. government funds the organization. However, it clearly demonstrates how “rules-based order” of international relations is a pile of rubbish.
The U.S. government has a number of offices that are supposed to assess human rights issues and prescribe remedies, but they are not allowed to function in a way that would actually alleviate suffering.
Israeli security forces scuffle with a Palestinian boy outside Damascus Gate in Jerusalem's old city during a demonstration on December 26, 2015. (AFP)
