Here we go again

[Scurrilous]

Jimmy Carter is coming under fire for departing from the accepted narrative about Israel.

<snip>

"In case you haven't heard, Jimmy Carter has a new book out. In it, drawing on his experiences in the Middle East over the past three decades, he sets out a game-plan for putting an end to violence in the region. The book is entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, and you should be able to guess the rest.

Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic, calls it a "tendentious, dishonest and stupid book." To Alan Dershowitz it's an "anti-Israel screed." Rick Richman of the Jewis press calls it "tendentious, dishonest, stupid," and "insidious."

An anonymous caller called into a C-SPAN interview and ranted at Jimmy Carter, calling him "a bigot, and a racist and an anti-Semite." The caller continued, accusing Carter of "cozying up with every dictator, thug, Islamic terrorist there is." MSNBC aired the attacks over and over , as if the ravings of a lunatic were somehow newsworthy--which given the fact that it's MSNBC, may be consistent).

To tell you the truth, it's not much of a book. I looked for a segment I cold excerpt on my website and couldn't find anything that was really worthy. It's simplistic and homiletic and gives only part of the story most of the time. Jimmy Carter is in some ways a great man, and in almost all ways a good man, but he's not much of a historian,

Still the vituperation is explained not by the above, but by one thing and one thing only. Carter has departed from the accepted narrative that Israel's so-called friends in the United States insist on imposing on the Israeli-Palestinian narrative. Depart from it and expect to get called all kind of names, none of them nice."

more

[asthmaticeog]

1. *rolls eyes*

"bigot, and a racist and an anti-Semite"

"cozying up with every dictator, thug, Islamic terrorist there is"

"To tell you the truth, it's not much of a book."

"It's simplistic and homiletic and gives only part of the story most of the time"

Charming pile of ad hominems. What FACTS did he get wrong?

[MADem]

2. The sad thing is that you don't have to be pro-one side and at the same time anti-the other

Think back across the decades. Who would have ever thought that the "one step forward, two steps back" diplomatic process would have EVER resulted in a defacto peace betweeen Egypt and Israel. It was, at one point in time, simply inconceivable.

People tend to think in stereotypes and broad brush descriptors; where one must either reject or embrace all of the arguments on one side while doing the opposite when speaking of the other side. It's not that simple. The people living in Israel now aren't the ones who brokered the agreement to create the state in the first place, and the Palestinians who are shoved into corners and living in dreadful conditions aren't the ones who were driven from their homes, wailing, with their keys around their necks.

It's a difficult and hurtful situation, and who knows if anything approaching "full justice and fairness" is possible. But just because a solution can't be perfect doesn't mean one shouldn't try. The best negotiators must be both pro-Israel AND pro-Palestine. And they have to not be afraid to fail, to have false starts, to see talks break down, start up, and break down again. It's a job requiring patience, superhuman patience. It's a long haul job, for smart folks, not one for the Bully-Bully-Show-No-Weakness/Have-No-Plans BushCo Administration.

Carter gets this; he's one of the few that do.

[IntiRaymi]

3. Very true in that Carter gets it.

'People tend to think in stereotypes and broad brush descriptors"

Very true.
So, to appeal to the distracted mind of John Q. Public, Nintendo playing pseudo-citizen, you must paint things with a nasty, broad brush.
Hence this litany of cliches emanating from the tired old clique of Israel-or-bust types, who are out there trying to keep public opinion in line with the zionist ideal, which may - or may not- be in the best interest of the USA.

Is it any coincidence that the militant enforcement of Israel as a sacrosanct cow comes from Right Wing hate radio?

[Tom Joad]

4. It is no more "anti-Israel" than the people Ann Coulter calls

"anti-american" are really anti-american ... those who question US policies in Iraq or elsewhere does not mean they hate americans. Those who question Israeli policies does not mean they hate Israelis.

We can expect to hear from Jingoists like Dershowitz to make these wild claims. He has a client to defend, and he goes to great lengths, and does anything he can to get his client off the hook.

[oberliner]

5. I'm still trying to figure out what the "Jewis press" is

Cited here:

Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic, calls it a "tendentious, dishonest and stupid book." To Alan Dershowitz it's an "anti-Israel screed." Rick Richman of the Jewis press calls it "tendentious, dishonest, stupid," and "insidious."

[Scurrilous]

6. Typo:

Jimmy Carter's Disingenuous Diplomacy

By: Rick Richman

http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/19956/Jimmy_Carter%27s_Disingenuous_Diplomacy.html

[oberliner]

7. Thanks for the link to that article

I find it odd that the author of the original article accuses Rick Richman of calling Carter's book, "tendentious, dishonest, stupid," and "insidious" when it is clear from this link that he was actually just quoting Martin Peretz.

[MADem]

8. Good catch...but not odd, I'd wager. There was probably an 'intent to deceive' in that sloppy

wordsmithing on the part of the author!!

[newyorican]

9. Surprise! Shock!

not...