Observer » Camp David

Here's Johnny

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:30:00 -0400

In this week's paper, I wrote about the efforts of supermarket magnate and Clinton bundler John Catsimatidis to ingratiate himself with local Republicans in advance of his prospective bid for mayor.

The fact that he's a Democrat, he stressed, shouldn't be a big deal.

"I was a Republican in the 1980's--a Ronald Reagan Republican," he said. "I donated to the Republican library. I supported George H.W. Bush. I helped build the chapel at Camp David under George H.W. Bush, and then I was chairman of the New York County dinner two years out of five under Roy Goodman. I've done a lot of Republican things.

"And I'm baaaack."

-- Azi Paybarah

Carter’s Breakup on NBC Nightly News: Survivor Guilt?

Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:21:11 -0400

Brian Williams stood up for Jimmy Carter Monday by airing a wonderful scene from the Carter Center over the weekend. At some panel convened by Williams, Carter volunteered a scene at Camp David with Anwar Sadat that is apparently not in his book. Sadat was leaving. Carter changed into a suit and tie, knelt in his room and prayed to God for guidance, then went into Sadat's room and, surrounded by suitcases, asked Sadat's aides to leave him alone with Anwar. Carter addressed Sadat angrily, nose to nose. "You're betraying me and you're betraying your people," he said. If you leave, Carter went on, "I will sever our friendship." Sadat, of course, stayed, and the rest is history.

As Carter told this story, he started to cry. I wonder about his survival guilt. Sadat may have preserved his friendship with Carter, but three years later he was assassinated. The episode suggests to me (again) the spiritual motivation for Carter's valiant book. If he's sacrificing himself, well, he owes as much to his friend.

Virulent Anti-Carterism Sweeps Country

Mon, 08 Jan 2007 18:27:17 -0400

Patrick O'Connor of Palestine Media Watch has an interesting quantitative analysis on the latest exponent of anti-Carterism: Ethan Bronner, who reviewed Jimmy Carter's book in a predictable manner in yesterday's NYT.

Bronner has written 18 articles on Israel and Palestine for the Times since July 30, 2000. In them he quoted 1226 words from Israelis, and just 145 words from Palestinians. For example, in the Week in Review on July 30, 2000, after the failure of Camp David, and two months before the outbreak of the 2nd Palestinian intifada which has continued for the last six and half years, Bronner counseled that "no explosion... occurred, nor is chaos expected any time soon." The peace process' "positive direction in the long term is clear." [!] Bronner quoted 228 words from Israelis and 67 words from a Palestinian in that less than prescient analysis. It could be asserted that Bronner is unfairly penalized for reviewing four books by Israelis and one book by a Palestinian. However, eliminating those five reviews worsens his ratio, yielding 1045 words quoted from Israelis, and 97 words quoted from Palestinians.

Jimmy Carter Gains Support From (the Great) Siegman

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:20:11 -0400

Henry Siegman has again and again proved a leader on the Israel/Palestine issue. His review of Jimmy Carter's apartheid-in-Palestine book in the Nation offers breathtaking relief from the smear campaign against Carter. His piece concludes with an explanation of Carter's enormous contribution to Israel's security.

Accusations by Alan Dershowitz and others that Carter is indifferent to Israel's security only prove that no good deed goes unpunished. Arguably, the single most important contribution to Israel's security by far was the removal of Egypt--possessing the most powerful of the military forces in the Arab world--from the Arab axis that was intent on the destruction of the State of Israel in its early years. Egypt's peace agreement with Israel permanently removed the possibility of such a combined Arab assault against the Jewish State, something for which the late Syrian president Hafez Assad could not get himself to forgive Sadat, even after he was assassinated....

Carter's book provides an important reminder that the Camp David agreement not only created a durable peace between Egypt and Israel but served as a model for all of the major Israeli-Palestinian peace initiatives that were to follow. Oslo's concepts of a self-governing Palestinian Authority, of a five-year process that concludes with agreements on permanent-status issues, of negotiations on such issues that begin no later than in the third year of the agreement and of an armed Palestinian police force to maintain order are all spelled out in the Camp David agreement. And the outline of what an Israeli-Palestinian settlement would have to look like if an agreement is to be reached is also adumbrated in the Camp David accords of 1978, which included Begin's acceptance of Egypt's insistence on the return of all Egyptian territory held by Israel. The magnitude of that accomplishment places the pettiness of the critics of President Carter and his latest book in proper perspective.

Scripting Jimmy Carter

Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:21:27 -0400

Jimmy Carter's interviewers have repeatedly challenged him about Hamas: Why should Israel talk to Hamas when Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist? Carter answers by describing the democratic elections that brought Hamas to power.

He ought to cite the insight of his former NSA Zbig Brzezinski, who said on public television that as the Carter Administration geared up the Camp David process in '78, Israel was led by an extremist party, Likud, that refused to accept the existence of "Palestinians," let alone their right to a state. And yet the U.S. and the Egyptians talked to those extremists.

The Palestinians are not the only unreasonable people in this mess.

The President Helps Mortimer Zuckerman Scoop the Post

Gabriel Snyder — Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:00:00 -0400

It was why Mortimer B. Zuckerman had bought the New York Daily News . The President of the United States, upset at how Rupert Murdoch's New York Post had been painting his wife as an anti-Semite, called the publisher on Sunday, July 16, with the offer of an exclusive interview.

Mr. Zuckerman was–and is–out of the country on vacation. His staff tracked him down. Mr. Zuckerman passed the interview with Bill Clinton to Michael Kramer, who was recently made managing editor for political affairs at the New York Daily News .

On Friday, the news had broken that Jerry Oppenheimer's book, State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton, contained an anecdote alleging that, in 1974, Hillary Rodham Clinton called Mr. Clinton's campaign manager a "fucking Jew bastard." The Post put the story on the front page. The Daily News ran it on page 6. According to a Daily News source, Mrs. Clinton's campaign had told Mr. Kramer that Mr. Clinton denied his wife had ever used the anti-Semitic slur, but that they would not be able to speak for the President.

Mr. Kramer conducted his interview Sunday evening, dealing primarily with the allegation in Mr. Oppenheimer's book. But he stumbled onto a news break on the Israeli-Palestinian summit at Camp David, where the White House press office had instituted a news blackout. According to an excerpt of the interview released by the White House press office later that day, Mr. Kramer asked the President, "How's it going?"

According to a Daily News source, Mr. Kramer wasn't asking about the Camp David talks, but Mr. Clinton took "it" to mean the negotiations and said, "I'm more optimistic than I was when they got here. This is really important. We might make it. I don't know. God, it's hard." The President then went on for a while with his optimistic-and-pessimistic take on things.

The Daily News put the Hillary denial story on the front page of the Monday paper; then, just past the "exclusive" story on former President Gerald Ford's advice for George W. Bush on choosing a running mate, the Camp David story showed up on page 5.

Nevertheless, the Daily News looked like it had a big day. Mr. Zuckerman's paper was front-page news worldwide. "The owner was in heaven," said one Daily News editor. "That is why the owner owns the paper." Mr. Zuckerman, still out of the country on vacation, was unavailable for comment.

"It was a fascinating episode," said Daily News editor in chief Ed Kosner. "It was fascinating that the President wanted to speak out. I think he thought it was important for him to say what he had to say. I suspect that they were concerned that if he only put out a statement that it would seem half-hearted."

The rest of the news media was ticked off. "It was extremely annoying," Barbara Slavin, the USA Today reporter at Camp David, said of the interview. "It was initiated by Clinton and he violated his own news blackout. He should not have answered questions on the summit." Still, Ms. Slavin added, it was nice to have some hard news to report. "We are drowning in a sea of rumors, misinformation, and fifth-hand spin," she said.

Stuck in Thurmont, Md., the press corps covering Camp David had been starving for news. At the White House press secretary's afternoon briefing on Sunday, July 16–around the time that the President was speaking with Mr. Kramer–Joe Lockhart stuck with the same statement he had been making for days on the peace talks: "Well, the U.S. view is, given there's a news blackout, we're not going to comment on any progress or lack of progress."

At Thurmont Elementary School, reporters were reduced to asking about how the presidential dog, Buddy, was getting along with the negotiators, to which Mr. Lockhart answered, "Let's just say, without getting into the substance of what's happened at the talks, this has been a bonanza for Buddy because the amenities from a canine point of view at Camp David are far superior to what is offered at the more urban center of the White House."

As for The New York Times , it did its own version of a whine.

For the late edition of Monday's Times , Jane Perlez, covering the talks in Thurmont, wrote that Mr. Clinton had "violated a White House news blackout" before reporting that he was "more optimistic" about the outcome of the talks. The first full quote from Mr. Clinton didn't come until the fourth paragraph.

A different version of the same story that ran on The New York Times ' Web site dwelled even further on the situation that led to the paper being scooped. Before getting on with her Camp David reporting, Ms. Perlez explained that the Oppenheimer book had "been given prominent coverage in the New York Post , which vigorously opposes Mrs. Clinton's Senate candidacy." She added, "Mr. Clinton apparently jumped at the opportunity to defend his wife when the Post 's main competitor, the News , gave him a chance to do so."

Then, on page A15 of the next day's paper, Marc Lacey wrote that "the president and Mr. Zuckerman know each other well. They have traveled together to the Middle East and played cards aboard Air Force One." Mr. Lacey then wrote that "Mr. Zuckerman arranged for the president to speak on the record to Mr. Kramer, whom Mr. Clinton also knows. Mr. Kramer's former wife, Kimba M. Wood, had been an early Clinton choice for attorney general before her name was withdrawn."

Contacted, Mr. Lacey denied any bitterness toward the Daily News . "I was happy for the Daily News to get their scoop and that is all," he said.

This, of course, is not the first time that Mr. Clinton has caused a stir by offering an unsolicited interview to a reporter. In May 1999, the President made an unsolicited call to Times reporter Richard Berke to share his feelings on Vice President Al Gore's campaign. The move backfired, though, when the Gore campaign interpreted the call as a sign the President lacked confidence in his Vice President.

"Sometimes I think he thinks, 'I'm not going to go through all these filters–I just want to get my two cents in,'" Mr. Berke said. "Sometimes there can be unintended consequences."

Off the Record can be reached by e-mail at gsnyder@observer.com