Jimmy Carter Can't Say What Jewish Critics of Israel Are Free to Say

[a.saccus]

The paddling Jimmy Carter is receiving for making criticisms of Israel that are common in Israel demonstrates a law of the Israel conversation: It is one thing for Jews to criticize Israel, but it's not O.K. for non-Jews to do so.[...]

Reading the article, and especially the comments of Abba Eban, a former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N., I wondered why it was that pro Is. debaters were so successful. And not only the article, but the comments posted after it here make instructive reading -- and actually led me to an answer.

There has been also no such comparable situation to a living President having to introduce in a LA times editorial, the reality of what we are not getting in most of the press - the fact there are few Universities inviting him in, he is being blacklisted. A Nobel Prize really goes far nowadays, unless you speak against the reality of what is going on in regards to Israel and Apartheid Policies.

(note: The LA times editorial by President Carter referred to appears in today's (December 11) Latest Signs of the Times Editorial section.)

Earlier in the same comment, Albert had written:

The hysteric, over-the-top comments you've received[referring to another commentor, Bill Pearlman] are wonderful for saving with this file together, for several classroom teaching purposes. And we do use these, believe me.

The comments, the nature of their language and intentions, just hammer the point home as to why we Americans are tired of Israel, the very real Israeli lobby money forcing itself as the sole center of our political rights.

There has been NO comparable historical situation with a living President actually being called out for treason, because he dares to SPEAK ON A SUBJECT! And he disagrees with the power of the Israel lobby.

As I read through the comments, especially those by "Bill Pearlman" (not reproduced here because of their scurillity), it struck me that I had heard similar pro-Is. arguments before; and that the responses were equally stereotyped and mechanically reflex-like. Almost as if there were some kind of manual being referenced.

Sure enough, further down the thread

As your Hasbara manual declares, when out of your depth and when exposed as a bigot, it's better to leave quietly.[...]

Not knowing what a "Hasbara manual" was, I Yahoogled, and wound up at SourceWatch here.

which spoke of the existence of -- a "Manual"!! And it wasn't a piece of fluff either -- at 131 pages long, it promises to be my bedtime reading for many weeks to come.

You can find the Manual at http:(double slash)www(dot)middle-east-info(dot)org(slash)take(slash)wujshasbara.pdf

The emphases in the passage are mine.

Seven Basic Propaganda Devices

Propaganda is used by those who want to communicate in ways that engage the emotions and downplay rationality, in an attempt to promote a certain message. To effectively present Israel to the public, and to counter anti-Israel messages, it is necessary to understand propaganda devices.

This article applies a list of seven propaganda devices to the Israeli situation, and by doing so allows an understanding of some of the ways in which public opinion is fought for in the International arena.

Thus what this manual is explicitly (and revealingly) about is ways to help the user win battles, not to find out the truth of the matter. :(

The seven basic propaganda devices are:

NAME CALLING
GLITTERING GENERALITY
TRANSFER
TESTIMONIAL
PLAIN FOLKS
FEAR
BANDWAGON

Each of the seven is followed by several paragraphs of examples on how the technique is to be applied.

Quite informative reading. This is, without a doubt, a very professional piece of work, and all the more chilling because of that very professionalism.
Major League STS.

I will only quote "NAME CALLING" in full, both out of space/time considerations and because it seems to be a technique universally and invariably used; but all the entries are interesting.

The emphases in the passage are mine.

Name Calling

Through the careful choice of words, the name calling technique links a person or an idea to a negative symbol. Creating negative connotations by name calling is done to try and get the audience to reject a person or idea on the basis of negative associations, without allowing a real examination of that person or idea. The most obvious example is name calling -- "they are a neo-Nazi group" tends to sound pretty negative to most people. More subtly, name calling works by selecting words with subtle negative meanings for some listeners. For example, describing demonstrators as "youths" creates a different impression from calling them "children".

For the Israel activist, it is important to be aware of the subtly different meanings that well chosen words give. Call "demonstrations" "riots", many Palestinian political organizations "terror organizations", and so on.

Those opposed to Israel use name calling all the time. Consider the meaning of the word "settlement". When applied to Gilo, a suburb of Jerusalem over the disputed 1967 borders, the word "settlement" creates the unfortunate impression that Gilo is located in the middle of the West Bank, and occupied by religious and political extremists (the image many people have acquired of settlements). That's how the media and opponents of Israel use name-calling. Other examples include referring to the "war crimes" of Ariel Sharon, talking about the "invasion" of the West Bank when an army unit enters territory under PA sovereignty in order to find terrorists, and so on.

Name calling is hard to counter. Don't allow opponents the opportunity to engage in point scoring. Whenever "name calling" is used, think about referring to the same thing (e.g. Gilo), but with a more favorable description (e.g. "suburb" }. Consider calling settlements "communities" or "villages". Use the same names back; if somebody talks about Sharon's "war crimes", talk about Arafat's war crimes and involvement in terror.

Try as I might, I couldn't find a map online locating Gilo. But I did find this:

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Euphemisms for Israeli Settlements Confuse Coverage
June 26, 2002
[...]
The "neighborhood" of Gilo

[...]

Looks like somebody's been getting their money's worth out of their Manual again.... :(

 

[Laura]

This manual is quite an interesting find! You are right, it is clearly not about Truth, but is about manipulation. It's rather like "Protocols Lite", only it's not so light.

Thanks for digging this one up.

 

[Cyre2067]

CNN: Carter Center Advisers resign over book

Carter Center advisers resign over book
POSTED: 4:56 a.m. EST, January 12, 2007

• Concerns of 14 advisers reflect uproar in the U.S. Jewish community
• Letters express concern over Carter's book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid"
• Advisers say book confused "opinion with fact, subjectivity with objectivity"
Adjust font size:


ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Former President Jimmy Carter's controversial book and subsequent remarks about the Israel-Palestinian conflict have prompted the resignations of 14 people from an advisory board of the Carter Center, the 25-year-old Atlanta-based humanitarian organization.

The 14 explained their concerns, which reflect an uproar in the U.S. Jewish community over Carter's Mideast stance, in letters sent Thursday to fellow Board of Councilors members and Carter.

"We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position," the letter to Carter said. "This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support."

The letter to the fellow Board of Councilors, with more than 200 members, was brief and less detailed but expressed concern about Carter's book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid."

"We are deeply troubled by the president's comments and writings and are submitting the following letter of resignation to the Carter Center," the letter said.

The letters were signed by Alan Abrams, Steve Berman, Michael Coles, Jon Golden, Doug Hertz, Barbara Babbit Kaufman, Liane Levetan, Jeff Levy, Leon Novak, Ambassador William B. Schwartz Jr., William B. Schwartz III, Steve Selig, Cathey Steinberg, and Gail Solomon. (Watch Carter defend his stance )

The letter to Carter said while each person "has been proud to be associated" with the center and its work, "we can no longer in good conscience continue to serve the center as members of the Board of Councilors."

The Board of Councilors is separate from the center's board of trustees, which is its governing body, the center says.

The Board of Councilors "is an advisory body of community leaders and business people who are briefed quarterly on the center's work and serve as emissaries of the center to the greater community," the center said. "They are not engaged in implementing work of the center and are not a governing board."

The letter to Carter accused him of abandoning his "historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side." Carter's book confused "opinion with fact, subjectivity with objectivity and force for change with partisan advocacy," the letter said.

"Israelis, through deed and public comment, have consistently spoken of a desire to live in peace and make territorial compromise to achieve this status. The Palestinian side has consistently resorted to acts of terror as a national expression and elected parties endorsing the use of terror, the rejection of territorial compromise and of Israel's right to exist. Palestinian leaders have had chances since 1947 to have their own state, including during your own presidency when they snubbed your efforts."

The center's initial response to the departures expressed appreciation for the members' efforts but did not address the concerns.

"We are grateful to these Board of Councilors members for their years of service and support for The Carter Center in advancing peace and health around the world," the center said.

Many Jewish groups say it is unfair to equate Israel or its policies in occupied territories with the old South African apartheid system that divided the races.

Carter has said the term refers to Israeli policies in occupied territories, not to Israel itself.

The former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner has been busy speaking out on the issue since the book was published.

Brandeis University in Massachusetts -- a nonsectarian school with a Jewish heritage and a large Jewish student body -- said Thursday that Carter will speak there and take questions.

The school said he "has accepted an invitation from a student and faculty committee" there "to speak on campus, perhaps as soon as January 23, although the date may be subject to change."

After reading bits from the Hasbara manual its evident we see similiar effects being played up here as well. More distortion and manipulation. I found it amusing that there's a link to the story from the cnn main page, is this really newsworthy? Seems a little obscure to me, i mean, who cares if people resign from one think-tank or another... this one is only getting played up b/c of the utility it serves to israeli interests.

Edit: from here: www cnn com/2007/US/01/11/carter.resignations/index.html