Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine -- Jimmy Carter

[bemildred]

Print version has this titled "How I See Palestine".

I SIGNED A CONTRACT with Simon & Schuster two years ago to write a book about the Middle East, based on my personal observations as the Carter Center monitored three elections in Palestine and on my consultations with Israeli political leaders and peace activists.

We covered every Palestinian community in 1996, 2005 and 2006, when Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas were elected president and members of parliament were chosen. The elections were almost flawless, and turnout was very high — except in East Jerusalem, where, under severe Israeli restraints, only about 2% of registered voters managed to cast ballots.

---

The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn any acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the terrible casualties on both sides.

The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.

LA Times

[Tom Joad]

1. I wish current politicians would listen to Israeli peace activists

they seem to be cut out of the loop by the militarists of aipac et.al.
Thank you Jimmy for opening up the debate.

[furman]

2. Why do peace groups not have more influence? The answer can easily be found in today's headlines.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-12-08-palestinian-pm_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
Palestinian prime minister vows not to recognize Israel
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh told thousands of Iranians on Friday that his Hamas-led government will never recognize Israel and will continue to fight for the "liberation of Jerusalem."

Making his first visit abroad since the militant group took power in March, Haniyeh blasted U.S. demands that Hamas recognize Israel as a basis for renewed peace talks and before international aid to the Palestinians resumes.

The U.S. "and Zionists ... want us to recognize the usurpation of the Palestinian lands and stop jihad and resistance and accept the agreements reached with the Zionist enemies in the past," Haniyeh told worshippers at Tehran University.

The United States is pressing the Palestinian government to not only recognize Israel, but to renounce violence and form a national unity government with the moderate Fatah party.

"I'm insisting from this podium that these issues won't materialize. We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem," he said.

<snip>


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061208/wl_mideast_afp/mideastpalestinian_061208153012
Thousands of Palestinians attend pro-Hamas rally

GAZA CITY (AFP) - Thousands of Palestinian supporters of the ruling Islamist Hamas movement have demonstrated in support of prime minister Ismail Haniya in Gaza City.

Demonstrators chanted slogans and heard speeches by Hamas leaders outside the Palestinian parliament building in the city center.

Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan called on Haniya "to remain prime minister in the current government and any future government".

<snip>

[chaz4jazz]

3. Another (opposing) View of Jimmy Carter's book

This is from a letter sent to friends that I received through email distribution
KEN STEIN RESIGNS

This note is to inform you that yesterday, I sent letters to President Jimmy Carter, Emory University President Jim Wagner, and Dr. John Hardman, Executive Director of the Carter Center resigning my position, effectively immediately, as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University. This ends my 23 yar association with an institution that in some small way I helped shape and develop.

My joint academic position in Emory College in the History and Political
Science Departments, and, as Director of the Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel remains unchanged.

Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center and, act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case. President Carter has intermittently continued to come to the Arab-Israeli Conflict class I teach in Emory College. He gives undergraduate students a fine first hand recollection of the Begin-Sadat negotiations of the late 1970s. Since I left the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East program of the Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center Fellow. For the record, I had nothing to do with the research, preparation, writing, or review of President Carter's recent publication. Any material which he used from the book we did together in 1984, The Blood of Abraham, he used unilaterally. President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where

I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade.

Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center's early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book. I can not allow that impression to stand.

Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to inform students and the general public about the history and politics of Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures, and in OPED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history must be presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way we wish it to be.

In closing, let me thank you for your friendship, past and continuing support for ISMI, and to Emory College. Let me also wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season, and a healthy and productive new year.


As ever,
Ken

EDITED FOR SPELLING (MINE) CORRECTION

[IntiRaymi]

18. Ken Stein was a nobody, and will remain one once this dies down.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=730

"But like Ayn Rand's John Galt, many people must have wondered, Who (the hell) is Kenneth Stein? Stein wrote exactly one scholarly book on the Israel-Palestine conflict more than two decades ago (The Land Question in Palestine, 1984). Even in his heyday, Stein was a nonentity. "

A virtual non-entity, Kenneth Stein, who has now made a name for himself at the expense of Jimmy Carter.
Basically, the response to this drama queen's resignation should be "SO WHAT!"

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. I love Norman's sense of humor

(to those who are not familiar with Professor Finkelstein's work his first major contribution was when he exposed the Joan Peter's Time in Memorial hoax--at laughably outlandish fraud based on faked documents and mangled figures to make the completely loony claim that there were no Palestinians)

"Even in his heyday, Stein was a nonentity. When Joan Peters's hoax From Time Immemorial was published, I asked his opinion of it. He replied that it had "good points and bad points." Just like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

"Later Stein wrote a sick essay the main thesis of which was, "the Palestinian Arab community had been significantly prone to dispossession and dislocation before the mass exodus from Palestine began" - in other words, the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 was really no big deal ("One Hundred Years of Social Change: The Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Probem," in Laurence Silberstein (ed.), New Perspectives on Israeli History, 1991).

The Pravda story was written by two reporters who seem to have made a beeline for the newsroom from their bat mitzvahs. They quote Stein to the effect that Carter's book is "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments." I doubt there's much to this. Most of the background material is Carter's reminiscences. Maybe he copied from Rosalyn's diary (she was his note taker). Then Pravda reports that "a growing chorus of academics...have taken issue with the book." Who do they name? Alan Dershowitz and David Makovsky. Makovsky is resident hack at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Israel Lobby's "think"-tank.

Pravda saw no irony in citing Dershowitz's expertise for a story on fabrication, falsification and plagiarism regarding a book on the Israel-Palestine conflict. As always, one can only be awed by the party discipline at our Pravda. It makes one positively wistful for the bygone days when commissars used to quote Stalin on linguistics. "

link:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=730

[oberliner]

65. Many of Norman Finkelstein's articles can be found on David Duke's website

And Stormfront's website. And a wide variety of other white-supremacist hate sites.

Odd that this Jewish man's writings would be so widely reprinted on such virulently anti-semitic sites.

What is it about him that these groups find so appealing?

[cool user name]

78. His blonde hair?

So Finkelstein is guilty because hate groups use his material? What sort of logic is that?

[IntiRaymi]

80. It is the sort of logic you always see here.

Criticize Israel, you become an anti-semite.
Face the consequences of exercising free speech in America...

[cool user name]

81. Well you can call that anything ...

... but 'logic' it most certainly is not.

;)

[IntiRaymi]

83. I think I'd call it a quality of being lemming-esque.

Israel continues its campaign of atrocities, because it either lacks the ability to gauge its actions against the world community, or because it is in the midst of an institutional failure of massive proportions, much like we are, here in the USA.

If they call me an anti-semite for criticizing Israel, they will become callous racists, with no regard for humanity.

[oberliner]

86. Issues with Norman Finkelstein have nothing to do with Israel

Rather his book, The Holocaust Industry.

I accused no-one here of being anti-semitic.

I find this forum to be a great place to share information and discuss critically all facets of the I/P conflict.

I just find some of the sources of information on both sides of the debate to be curious.

[cool user name]

89. I think that Israel's problem is the US

If the US hasn't been such an enabler, Israel would have learned along time ago that she can have peace by respecting the rights of the people that live in the area.

Sadly, she has resorted to force to get what she wanted and that has led to reaction, as ghastly as that reaction has been, it was a reaction nonetheless.

And I agree with the general sentiments of your post.

[oberliner]

88. He isn't guilty of anything other than espousing opinions

that those groups agree with.

[cool user name]

90. So if you say it's sunny outside

... and an anti-semite agrees, does that make you wrong?

[oberliner]

91. I don't think my commenting that it's sunny outside

would warrant David Duke putting it on his web site.

I would imagine that these websites would only reprint articles that related in some way to their particular objectives.

[Douglas Carpenter]

94. both of Dr. Finkenstein's parents are survivors of Nazi death camps

--almost his entire extended family in Poland was wiped out by the Nazis in the holocaust.

Professor Finkelstein feels very strongly that the horrors of Jewish suffering in the holocaust has been and are being exploited by political demagogues and even shameless profiteers.

This is the dedication Dr. Finkelstein opens his book: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict -- Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Image-Reality-Israel-Palestine-Conflict-Revised/dp/1859844421/sr=1-1/qid=1165660363/ref=sr_1_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books

"To my beloved parents,

Maryla Husyt Finkelstein
survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto,
Maidnanck concentration camp

and

Zacharias Finkelstein
survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto,
Auschwitz concentration camp

May I never forget or forgive
what was done to them"

--Norman G. Finkelstein

[chaz4jazz]

4. Another view from Weisenthal Center

I am placing these notes to counter and add discussion points to the debate.

• Israel’s “occupation and colonialization” of the West Bank and Gaza is the reason there is no peace.

FACT: President Carter deliberately overlooks that in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak went to Camp David and offered Yasser Arafat 95% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza and part of the Old City of Jerusalem for a Palestinian State, along with $30 billion in compensation for Palestinian refugees. Arafat’s response: launching the bloody Intifada which targeted innocent civilians in restaurants, malls, schools, and religious services with suicide terror attacks. Had Arafat accepted Israel’s offer at Camp David there would have long been a Palestinian State alongside Israel.


• Israel’s ‘Wall’ has virtually choked-off the Palestinian economy and in many ways is worse than South Africa’s former Apartheid system.

FACT: Israel’s temporary security fence has been an effective deterrent in thwarting unending Palestinian suicide terror attacks which have dropped over 90% since its construction. Israel has said that the fence will come down when the Palestinian terror stops. Israel is entitled to protect her citizens from outside threats in the same way as with any sovereign country. It is interesting to note that during his presidency President Carter correctly chose to continue the U.S. embargo of its Soviet-allied neighbor, Cuba because he perceived it as a continuing potential national security threat.


• The actions of Israeli governments do not reflect the will of the people who, in polls consistently show that Israelis overwhelming support a two-state solution.

FACT: Israelis’ support for a two-state solution is predicated on having a peaceful partner that does not seek the destruction of the Jewish State and has a government that renounces terrorism.


• President Carter blames “powerful political, economic and religious forces” in the U.S. for America’s "submissive" pro-Israel policies.

FACT: America’s continuing bipartisan support of Israel is not a result of pressure from “powerful political, economic and religious forces” but based on U.S. interests and the fact that Israel is a democracy whose citizens share common values with the American people.


There is no Israeli Apartheid Policy and President Carter knows it. We therefore urge you to join with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in respectfully reminding him that the real reason there is no peace in the Middle East is because of continued Palestinian terrorism and fanaticism.

And when the Palestinian people repudiate their fanatics in favor of a course of moderation there will be peace in the Middle East.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. I posted this on another thread -- but I thought it relevant here

With the exception of about 10 days in Taba, Egypt in 2001 -- the Palestinians have never been offered anything remotely like a reasonable settlement in the past 50 years.

The ink wasn't even dry from signing the Oslo Accord in September, 1993 and Israel was engaging in the most massive settlement expansion project in its history, along with building the Apartheid roads and imposing closure policies which devastated the Palestinian economy.

When the Israeli and Palestinian delegations met in the summer of 2000 for final status talks, the only offers the Palestinians were given were so outrageous that even a lead negotiator and the Israeli Foreign Minister Schlomo Ben-Ami has said very clearly that he would have rejected the offer if he had been Palestinian. link:
http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

It was not until the very final days of the Barak Labor government and under tremendous pressure from President Clinton did the Israeli government get serious about a credible offer.

Unfortunately with Mr. Sharon who was widely expected to win the election pledging that he would not honor the agreement and then Mr. Barak deciding to distance himself from the Taba negotiations, Israel--not the Palestinians unilaterally withdrew from the Taba talks on January 28, 2001. It must be said in fairness that Israel was just a couple weeks away from the election at that point:

Here is a link to the European Union summary document regarding the Taba talks first published in Haaretz on February 14, 2001:

"Moratinos Document" - The peace that nearly was at Taba

"In the current reality of terror attacks and bombing raids, it is hard to remember that Israel and the Palestinians were close to a final-status agreement at Taba only 13 months ago."

By Akiva Eldar

Ha'aretz
14 February 2002

snip" This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to the rest of Mr. Eldar's analysis as well as complete summary documents known as the "Moratinos Document"

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html
_________________________________

link to a summary of what was actually offered to the Palestinians at Camp David in the Summer of 2000:

link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113
__________________________

Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University Connecticut

link:

http://www.samed-syr.org/CampDavidAndTaba.pdf

_________________________


The Arab Peace Initiative (Also known as the Saudi Peace Plan)

It was unanimously affirmed by the Arab League and immediately endorsed by the Palestinian leadership in March 2002 and very recently reaffirmed. However, more or less the same plan has been offered by the Arab League and enthusiastically endorsed by the Palestinian leadership going back much, much longer.

link: http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

"The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session, reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government.

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organizations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union."

link: http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm
___________

[cool user name]

49. Those are tired old talking points straight outta AIPAC

Come back with some new ones at least. Go on, be creative!

:eyes:

[chaz4jazz]

5. Alan Dershowitz comments on Carter's book

I don't know why Jimmy Carter, who is generally a careful man, allowed so many errors and omissions to blemish his book. Here are simply a few of the most egregious.

• Carter emphasizes that "Christian and Muslim Arabs had continued to live in this same land since Roman times," but he ignores the fact that Jews have lived in Hebron, Tzfat, Jerusalem, and other cities for even longer. Nor does he discuss the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries since 1948.
• Carter repeatedly claims that the Palestinians have long supported a two-state solution and the Israelis have always opposed it. Yet he makes no mention of the fact that in 1938 the Peel Commission proposed a two-state solution with Israel receiving a mere sliver of its ancient homeland and the Palestinians receiving the bulk of the land. The Jews accepted and the Palestinians rejected this proposal, because Arab leaders cared more about there being no Jewish state on Muslim holy land than about having a Palestinian state of their own.

• He barely mentions Israel's acceptance, and the Palestinian rejection, of the U.N.'s division of the mandate in 1948.

• He claims that in 1967 Israel launched a preemptive attack against Jordan. The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel first, Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surrounded Jerusalem, firing missiles into the center of the city. Only then did Israel capture the West Bank, which it was willing to return in exchange for peace and recognition from Jordan.

• Carter repeatedly mentions Security Council Resolution 242, which called for return of captured territories in exchange for peace, recognition and secure boundaries, but he ignores the fact that Israel accepted and all the Arab nations and the Palestinians rejected this resolution. The Arabs met in Khartum and issued their three famous "no's": "No peace, no recognition, no negotiation" but you wouldn't know that from reading the history according to Carter.

• Carter faults Israel for its "air strike that destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor" without mentioning that Iraq had threatened to attack Israel with nuclear weapons if they succeeded in building a bomb.

• Carter faults Israel for its administration of Christian and Muslim religious sites, when in fact Israel is scrupulous about ensuring every religion the right to worship as they please--consistant, of course, with security needs. He fails to mention that between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Hashemites destroyed and desecrated Jewish religious sites and prevented Jews from praying at the Western Wall. He also never mentions Egypt's brutal occupation of Gaza between 1949 and 1967.

• Carter blames Israel, and exonerates Arafat, for the Palestinian refusal to accept statehood on 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza pursuant to the Clinton-Barak offers of Camp David and Taba in 2000-2001. He accepts the Palestinian revisionist history, rejects the eye-witness accounts of President Clinton and Dennis Ross and ignores Saudi Prince Bandar's accusation that Arafat's rejection of the proposal was "a crime" and that Arafat's account "was not truthful"--except, apparently, to Carter. The fact that Carter chooses to believe Yasir Arafat over Bill Clinton speaks volumes.

• Carter's description of the recent Lebanon war is misleading. He begins by asserting that Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers. "Captured" suggest a military apprehension subject to the usual prisoner of war status. The soldiers were kidnapped, and have not been heard from--not even a sign of life. The rocket attacks that preceded Israel's invasion are largely ignored, as is the fact that Hezbollah fired its rockets from civilian population centers.

• Carter gives virtually no credit to Israel's superb legal system, falsely asserting (without any citation) that "confessions extracted through torture are admissible in Israeli courts," that prisoners are "executed" and that the "accusers" act "as judges." Even Israel's most severe critics acknowledge the fairness of the Israeli Supreme Court, but not Carter.

• Carter even blames Israel for the "exodus of Christians from the Holy Land," totally ignoring the Islamization of the area by Hamas and the comparable exodus of Christian Arabs from Lebanon as a result of the increasing influence of Hezbollah and the repeated assassination of Christian leaders by Syria.

• Carter also blames every American administration but his own for the Mideast stalemate with particular emphasis on "a submissive White House and U.S. Congress in recent years." He employs hyperbole and overstatement when he says that "dialogue on controversial issues is a privilege to be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and withheld from those who reject U.S. demands." He confuses terrorist states, such as Iran and Syria to which we do not extend dialogue, with states with whom we strongly disagree, such as France and China, with whom we have constant dialogue.


I hope President Carter will seriously consider addressing these omissions and mistakes. He begins his book tour soon and he will have an opportunity to correct the record.


Send to a friendPost a CommentPrint PostRead all posts by Alan Dershowitz

[cool user name]

64. Why are you quoting a plagiarist? Alan Dershowitz copied ...

... the fraud Joan Peters.

[mystikiel]

104. I don't know why you have so many errors in your post

<I>Yet he makes no mention of the fact that in 1938 the Peel Commission proposed a two-state solution with Israel receiving a mere sliver of its ancient homeland and the Palestinians receiving the bulk of the land. The Jews accepted and the Palestinians rejected this proposal</I>

The Arabs and Jews both rejected the proposal. Specifically, the Jews rejected the partition plan but were keen to see the population transfer proceed (which would have uprooted about 200,000 Arabs, but only 1,000 Jews).

<I>Carter blames Israel, and exonerates Arafat, for the Palestinian refusal to accept statehood on 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza pursuant to the Clinton-Barak offers of Camp David and Taba in 2000-2001.</I>

The offer did not amount to 'statehood' on 95% of the West Bank. For example, Israel retained all of the rights pertaining to water over the West Bank, and reserved the right to reoccupy the country. The Palestinians would also be precluded from having any defence forces - generally the prerogative of any sovereign state.

<I>"Captured" suggest a military apprehension subject to the usual prisoner of war status.</I>

Does Israel afford to all of its prisoners the rights accorded to POWs - for example, repatriation at the cessation of hostilities? If not, are those prisoners also 'kidnapped'?

<I>"confessions extracted through torture are admissible in Israeli courts,"</I>

Presently, confessions extracted through the use of torture are admissible in the case of Palestinian detainees considered a threat to the security of the state. The assertion is true. However 'superb' you consider the Israeli Supreme Court to be does not make a bit of damn difference.

These are just the points I consider to be incorrect - most of the other problems in your post relate to the use of weasal words, eg - what is the definition of a terrorist state?

[bemildred]

6. Jimmy Carter's Thoughtful Response

Comments are interesting, sort of.

This morning in the LA Times, Jimmy Carter crafted a remarkably thoughtful and intelligent reply to the charges leveled against him in his first few days of his book tour.

As we are attempting to shed light on the right wing strategy of smearing Democratic and Progressive leaders, we encourage everyone to watch the right wing reaction to President Carter's opinion piece after you've read it; noticing that the discussions of the personal charges against him are just a small fraction of the piece.

However, this is what the right wing will jump on in an effort to continue the smear - a smear we remind you that was made by a random unknown caller to C-SPAN. By focusing the coverage on the smear, namely "Carter Responds To Anti-Semite Charge" they can continue to push the "two sides of the story" meme which is false.

Slowly, other newspapers and non-right wing media will feel the need to show the two sides - somewhere someone will ask the question, "Is Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite? We'll tell you what both sides are saying."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson-and-james-boyce/jimmy-carters-thoughtful_b_35848.html

[bemildred]

7. Jimmy Carter Trivializes Rwandan Genocide

Last Tuesday, Jimmy Carter, while promoting his new book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid,* went further in his anti-Israel rhetoric than even most hard-left extremists would go. Asked whether he believed that Israel's "persecution" of Palestinians was "ven worse ... than a place like Rwanda," Carter answered, "Yes. I think - yes." (You can find the transcript here.)

The comparison is breathtaking and wrong. Here are the facts:

In April through July of 1994, Hutu militias slaughtered an estimated 800,000 Tutsis (and raped thousands) in an attempt to eradicate those people from the country. During any comparable period, the number of Palestinian casualties has never exceeded the hundreds, and for the most part, they have been either combatants, human shields, or civilians inadvertently killed in efforts to kill combatants. These deaths have come in the course of Israel defending itself against three wars of annihilation in which the Palestinians openly and actively sided with the Arab invaders (1948, 1967, and 1973), two intifadas (both prompted by Israeli peace gestures), and a general war of terrorist attrition against Israeli citizens in the meantime. The worst that one could accuse Israel of is occasionally employing too much aggression in its defensive tactics - a far cry from the willful genocide of nearly a million people.

The idea of uttering Israel and Rwanda in the same sentence - and citing Israel as the greater offender of human rights - is obscene. It is also deeply insulting to the memory of those Rwandans who were murdered, raped, and mutilated in what coud only be characterized as genocide.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/jimmy-carter-trivializes-_b_35880.html

[bemildred]

8. The relevant section of the Hardball interview:

---

CARTER: Let‘s look at the entire title, if you don‘t mind. The first word is Palestine, which involves the land that belongs to the Palestinians, not the Israelis. I didn‘t refer to Israel, because there‘s no semblance of anything relating to apartheid within the nation of Israel.

And I also emphasized the word ‘not‘ -- that is, peace, and not apartheid. That is what I hope to accomplish with this book, is sort of move to that goal. But there‘s no doubt that within the Occupied Territories—Palestinian land—that there is a horrendous example of apartheid. The occupation of Palestinian land, the confiscation of that land that doesn‘t belong to Israel, the building of settlements on it, the colonization of that land, and then the connection of those isolated but multiple settlements—more than 200 of them—with each other by highways, on which Palestinians can‘t travel and quite often where Palestinians cannot even cross.

So the persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories—under the occupation forces—is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know. And I think it‘s—

SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?

CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?

SHUSTER: Yes.

CARTER: Yes.

SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?

CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—

SHUSTER: You‘re talking about right now, you‘re not talking about say, a few years ago.

CARTER: I‘m not talking about ancient history, no.

SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn‘t ancient history; it was just a few years ago.

CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk

about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous

in their own territory, by the occupying powers, which is Israel.

They‘re taken away all the basic human rights of the Palestinians, as was done in South Africa against the blacks. And I make it very plain in this book that the apartheid is not based on racism, as it was in South Africa. But it‘s based on the desire, of a minority of Israelis to acquire land that belongs to the Palestinians and to retain that land, and then to exclude the Palestinians from their own property and subjugate them, so that they can‘t arise and demonstrate their disapproval of being robbed of their own property. That‘s what‘s happening in the West Bank.

And the people in this country, in America, never know about this, they never discuss this, there‘s no debate about it, there‘s no criticism of Israel in this country. And in Israel, there is an intense debate about the issues in this book. In this country, no.

SHUSTER: I agree—I mean, I wish we had that sort of debate that they‘re having in Israel, I wish we had that in the United States. But give us a sort of sense, how much of the responsibility for the conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, do you think belongs to the Israelis for their tactics like seizing land and occupying territory that didn‘t belong to them, how much of it is the responsibility of the Palestinians for their suicide terror attacks and their bombing within Israel proper?

CARTER: As a matter of fact, the basic cause of the conflict is a sustained occupation of other people‘s land by the Israelis. And this is a direct violation of United Nations resolutions, it‘s a direct violation of an international quartet‘s road map, it‘s a direct violation of the commitments that leaders of Israel have made in the past, at Camp David when I was president, and in Oslo, promising that Israel would withdraw from occupied territories. They have failed to do so.

In response to that—and I‘m not excusing them—there have been acts of violence. As a matter of fact, though, Hamas, the number one accused persons of violence, have not committed an act of suicide bombing, that cost an Israeli life, now since August of 2004. And I hope that they won‘t do that anymore.

Other participants of the Palestinian society, smaller ones, have committed some atrocities, but the loss of life and the entire Occupied Territories has been horrendous and has been caused by both sides.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951792/

[Tom Joad]

13. It is amazing the lies that have been concocted about Carter

and his support for human rights for Palestinians. It is not unusual though. Here we see he is NOT saying that what Israel is doing is worse than Rwanda, he is saying something very different. Yet the liars and fanatics like Dershowitz (who is used to getting brazen killers off the hook in court) will make up fantasy to attack Carter. In an attempt to deflect serious discussion of the brutal, deadly, decades-long occupation of Palestine.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

32. If you read the transcript that was linked, you will see that he didn't say what

you are suggesting.

[everythingsxen]

37. Uh...

(CARTER)So the persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories—under the occupation forces—is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know. And I think it‘s—

SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?

CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?

SHUSTER: Yes.

CARTER: Yes.

SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?

CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—

SHUSTER: You‘re talking about right now, you‘re not talking about say, a few years ago.

CARTER: I‘m not talking about ancient history, no.

SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn‘t ancient history; it was just a few years ago.

CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous in their own territory, by the occupying powers, which is Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Jimmy Carter did NOT say what yr accusing him of...

That transcript looks as though someone was trying really really hard to draw him into talking about Rwanda and he made it clear he wanted to talk about the Palestinians. He did NOT say the persecution of the Palestinians was worse than Rwanda at all...

[everythingsxen]

42. Except that's exactly what he says...

[Violet_Crumble]

44. No, he didn't. Even the bit you bolded didn't say that n/t

[breakaleg]

40. and where in that statement, you even put it in bold, did he say what

you are accusing him of?

[everythingsxen]

45. Well let's see..

I accused him of saying that I/P was worse than Rwanda, which is what he says in the text I posted...

Sorry, I may not be clear enough. I am posting from the real world, not from Bizarro world where everything means the opposite of what it actually does.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Nothing in the text you posted said that...

Show the exact bit where he said that, not some bolded bit that isn't him saying that at all...

[cool user name]

73. I don't see it either.

Maybe, um, you can point it out for us dumbfolk?

:shrug:

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Yeah, I'd like to see the exact bit as well n/t

[everythingsxen]

53. Uh, ok this is the last time Violet...

SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?

CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?

SHUSTER: Yes.

CARTER: Yes.

SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?

CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—

Ok, so Shuster is clearly talking about Rwanda during the civil war. So that is genocide. And there is Carter saying that the "persecution" of the Palestinians is worse than that...

[breakaleg]

55. He said what is happening to the Palestinians today, is worse than what in

happening in Rwanda today. The part where he says he's not talking about history... He then went on to say that he's not talking about Rwanda in the past and comparing it to Palestinians today.

[everythingsxen]

59. No, he is talking about..

Palestine today and then deliberately begins dodging away from the fact that he had just said that the genocide of hundreds of thousands was not as bad as the "oppression" of the Palestinians.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Knock it off...

He did NOT say that the situation in the OPT was worse than the Rwandan genocide. He was talking about Rwanda NOW, not then, and the transcript makes that very clear so I'd like to know why yr repeating over and over that he said something he definately didn't say...

[everythingsxen]

70. And you repeating over and over...

that he meant something else does not make it true. I know in some alternate universes when Jimmy Carter says the I/P situation is worse than Rwanda during the genocide, he is actually saying something else. He said the situation in palestine is worse than Rwanda. You are deluding yourself if you think he said something else.

[Violet_Crumble]

72. Please read this post of Bemildred's

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=158255&mesg_id=158390

He said the situation in Palestine now is worse than in Rwanda now. He did not say it was worse than in Rwanda during the genocide...

[Violet_Crumble]

57. He's talking about Rwanda right NOW, not the genocide...

Sheez, how hard is that to understand??? And what's more, he's right...

[everythingsxen]

60. No, he is talking about Palestine right NOW and the weasals his way out..

How hard is that to understand?

[oberliner]

14. Quoting President Carter and Prime Minister Haniyeh

President Carter on Hamas:

"(They) have not committed an act of suicide bombing, that cost an Israeli life, now since August of 2004. And I hope that they won‘t do that anymore."

Hamas leader (and Palestinian Prime Minister) Ismail Haniyeh:

"We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem."

[bemildred]

16. Jimmy is right.

He probably ought to mention that they HAVE tried since then, and that nonetheless there are quite a few dead Israelis since then, and then that there are even more dead Palestinians and Lebanese. But I would speculate (not having a link) that he wanted to avoid getting dragged off onto such subjects, which serve to inflame rather than to illuminate.

I doubt that the political posturing of leaders like Haniyeh means anything, any more than the blather that continually comes from Olmert's mouth.

[TomClash]

25. Read the transcript

Carter said "right now?" meaning the conditions in Palestine versus Rwanda NOW.

Alan Dershowitz has zero credibility. Zero.

[msmcghee]

26. If someone asked Carter if he thought that . .

. . the recent Gaza Qassam attacks on S. Israel compared to the al Queda attack on the WTC, and Carter said "Do you mean comparable to the current status of the WTC as a construction site?" - of course he would be dodging the question. That's what he was doing in this case.

He's obviously gone off the deep end - he won't even admit that Palestine over the last year is no where near as deadly or violent as Rwanda - was then.

[TomClash]

35. That was not the question

When Carter asked for clarification, Shuster told Carter he was asking about Rwanda NOW. Read the transcript.

Of course Carter does not want to answer the question. It's stupid question and really typical of the right wing arguments in support of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It's not as bad in Palestine now as Rwanda was in 1994 and no one would argue otherwise. So because 800,000 people have not died then the Israeli occupation is acceptable. Because it's not the Holocaust, it is acceptable. Because it is not the Warsaw Ghetto, it is acceptable. Because it is not the worst of atrocities, it is acceptable.

Next time there's a pogrom against jews will that be the answer, it's not as bad as the Holocaust, so it is acceptable?

Here's a flash: there's no war in Rwanda today - there's a low intensity war of attrition and misery in Palestine, where half of the Gazan population receives only one meal a day, medical care is often denied or unavailable, much of the population has no work and the money has run out. Carter was right it is worse in Palestine than Rwanda now.

The only person who's gone off the deep end is Alan Dershowitz - apparently he can no longer hear or read.

[msmcghee]

38. You are wrong and grasping at straws.

SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?

Carter realizes at this moment that he has been caught overstating his case and demonizing Israel in a way that will discredit his book and all his opinions on the matter.

IMO he has revealed here a deep and abiding hatred of Israel with his statement. I think that's the real information value of the interview. Not that Carter has no sense of proportion as some will try to characterize it. I think there are things in Carter's heart that he can not control other than just Playboy Bunnies - that cause him great guilt.

He could have said, "Well no, this is not comparable to the horrible magnitude of what went on in Rwanda, but this is terrible in its own way." That would have been the honorable thing to do and would have saved his credibility.

Instead, he tries to backtrack and deny what he just said - or at least provide some trail of deniability. Basically, he tries to disavow his earlier statement without having to admit to a gross exaggeration.

CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—

[TomClash]

51. What nonsense

I think I pretty well explained why he didn't want to talk about Rwanda circa 1994. Not much anyone can do about that now.

Looks to me like he was clarifying Shuster's statement - who then did precisely that. Was Shuster backtracking too?

A deep and abiding hatred of Israel? Why would that be his view?

[AlienGirl]

56. "Next time?" Do you expect one...?

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Me, I'd say there's a reasonable chance...

Why? Do you have a problem with someone thinking that given their regularity in history?

[msmcghee]

63. Do you have any theories as to why . .

. . they are so regular?

[Violet_Crumble]

67. No fucking idea...

Now, I'll just sit and wait for Alien Girl to reply to the question I asked her :)

[AlienGirl]

74. I was just askin'.

:-) :loveya:

[Violet_Crumble]

76. Oh, okay....

:)

[AlienGirl]

77. Have fun, kiddo!

:-)

[Violet_Crumble]

79. I shall!

:hi:

[TomClash]

66. No

Do you?

[bemildred]

27. No, I don't think he really engaged the question about Rwanda.

I think he saw it as a sort of red herring.

SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?

CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?

SHUSTER: Yes.

CARTER: Yes.

SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?

CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—

SHUSTER: You‘re talking about right now, you‘re not talking about say, a few years ago.

CARTER: I‘m not talking about ancient history, no.

SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn‘t ancient history; it was just a few years ago.

CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk
about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous
in their own territory, by the occupying powers, which is Israel.

[msmcghee]

36. Let's look at the full context of the dialog.

First, Carter states his premise that becomes the topic of the exchange.

Carter: So the persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories—under the occupation forces—is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know. And I think it‘s—

Shuster wants him to provide some scale here - for the audience. He offers a ridiculously high upper limit.

SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?

Carter avoids the opportunity to place his statement within reasonable bounds - and instead uses the opportunity to again place Israel in the pantheon of the worst murderers in modern history.

CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?

SHUSTER: Yes.

CARTER: Yes.

At this point, Carter has stated that the persecution of Palestinians now is worse than that suffered by the Rwandans during their civil war when 800,000 were killed. There is no ongoing human rights deprivation now in Rwanda - so he could not reasonably have been referring to "Rwanda" now. When Carter asks "You mean, now?" he was referring to the current Palestinian persecution. Shuster realizes he has caught Carter in a gross exaggeration and tries to get Carter to affirm or deny this outrageous claim. Shuster knows that his job is to make Carter affirm or deny unequivocally. He states his question to him very clearly pinning down the relative time frames Carter has been hoping to leave ambiguous.

SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?

Carter realizes at this moment that he has been caught overstating his case and demonizing Israel in a way that will discredit his book and all his opinions on the matter.

IMO he has revealed here a deep and abiding hatred of Israel (possibly Israelis) with his statement. I think that's the real information value of the interview. Not that Carter has no sense of proportion as some will try to characterize it. I think there are things in Carter's heart that he can not control other than just Playboy Bunnies - that cause him great guilt.

He could have said, "Well no, this is not comparable to the horrible magnitude of what went on in Rwanda, but this is terrible in its own way." That would have been the honorable thing to do and would have saved his credibility.

Instead, he tries to backtrack and deny what he just said - or at least provide some trail of deniability. Basically, he tries to disavow his earlier statement without having to admit to a gross exaggeration.

CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—

Shuster sees what he is doing and tries again to make him admit to what he just said - or correct his mistake.

SHUSTER: You‘re talking about right now, you‘re not talking about say, a few years ago.

CARTER: I‘m not talking about ancient history, no.

SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn‘t ancient history; it was just a few years ago.

CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk
about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous
in their own territory, by the occupying powers, which is Israel.

In his last statement Carter runs away from his initial assertion completely, trying again to erase the trail back to his initial egregious libelous statement against Israel.

[breakaleg]

43. I don't see the problem with what he said.

It seems to me that he's saying he wants to talk about Palestine since it's an ongoing conflict that needs to be dealt with - now. He's not comparing it to any other conflict, the interviewer is.

And why does it need to be compared to another conflict - either present or past - anyway? This is something that needs to be addressed and whether it is as bad as or not as bad as a situation elsewhere, doesn't change that.

[msmcghee]

50. In otherwords he's doing what you and others . .

. . here do when confronted with an uncomfortable question about the I/P conflict that reveals your unfair bias against Israel.

He agreed to the interview knowing he'd be able to push his book sales. He can answer the questions the interviewer asks or he he can try to come up with obfuscations and excuses like you folks do.

Anyone who looks at the interview objectively can see which alternative he chose.

[bemildred]

48. Reluctantly ...

Shuster, for whatever reason, brings up Rwanda:

SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?

Carter, trying to figure out what Rwanda has to do with it:

CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?

Shuster confirming he means now:

SHUSTER: Yes.

Carter confirming the OPT are worse now:

CARTER: Yes.

Shuster switches back to the past:

SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?

Carter reiterates that he is talking about the OPT now:

CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—

Shuster confirms that Carter is talking about now:

SHUSTER: You‘re talking about right now, you‘re not talking about say, a few years ago.

Jimmy agrees:

CARTER: I‘m not talking about ancient history, no.

Shuster disagrees with Jimmys characterization of the past:

SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn‘t ancient history; it was just a few years ago.

Jimmy again reiterates he wants to talk about the OPT now:

CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk
about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous
in their own territory, by the occupying powers, which is Israel.

[msmcghee]

52. Believe what you like, bemildred.

But I think you know in your heart what happened here.

[bemildred]

54. Bwaaahaaahaaa.

Boy, that really takes me back.

[msmcghee]

61. Here is a link to the video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1hvcz3hTDvU

There's no doubt what happened here.

Carter made an egregious statement and was not honest enough to retract or admit it - just because that would have lessened Israel's condemnation that was the purpose of his book.

When you and others say that Carter didn't want to talk about Rwanda - that is a Red Herring of the worst sort.

He was not being asked to discuss Rwanda. He was simply asked if the Palestinian oppression by Israel now was worse than what happened in Rwanda. It was just a marker of the level of oppression to be affirmed or denied. Carter tried to weasel.

End of story.

[bemildred]

68. I don't watch TV.

Really, I don't. It rots your brain.

[msmcghee]

71. Pretty revealing.

I offer you a chance to see the exact words and inflections and body language of the discussion that we have spent quite a few posts analyzing in all its details.

You don't want to see it.

OK.

[bemildred]

75. This is way better than the cartoons, anyway. nt

[msmcghee]

82. Just to show how far you are going . .

. . to avoid the truth, you started a post above with "Reluctantly" in the title line.

If you watch the video you will see that he jumped on the question as soon as Carter made his libelous assertion. It was the opposite of reluctance.

And then he pursued the train of questions to pin Carter down relentlessly.

Carter ducked and bobbed and was a bit angry and a bit embarrassed.

All the cartoons are right here in this forum.

[bemildred]

85. You are such a good reader of minds.

I don't know why you bother with us here when you could be making the big bucks playing the markets or poker in Vegas.

Mainly I was just reluctant to waste time on you.

I'm glad we agree about the cartoons.

[bemildred]

9. Question:

Does anyone else think that it might not be a coincidence that the ISG report and Carter's book are out at about the same time?

[bemildred]

11. Jimmy Carter's Mein Kampf

Godwin stands vindicated once again ...

That was Borat, not Jimmy Carter, who urged a crowd of lounge lizards in Tucson to join him in singing, ''Throw the Jews Down the Well.''

Carter has the same message but (without the spoof) his narrative comes in a book that's just being released and titled ''Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.''

Apparently the written word is not enough, so Carter has taken his grudge against Israel on tour. There he is with his brotherhood on National Public Radio (NPR) where Israel-bashing is always welcome, and here he is on C-Span, and he keeps on going and won't stop until he's got us all signing up for Holocaust Part 2.

Historians tell us that Pharaoh was the first to stir up the multitudes against the Jews, and we have it from Scripture that a new Pharaoh will arise to torment us from generation to generation. Carter knows his Bible and the part where Pharaoh says: ''Come, let us deal craftily with this people.''

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=25476

[Tom Joad]

15. Just more spittle from the anti-Palestinian hate machine known as

ChronWatch.

[bemildred]

17. I thought the indirect comparison with Hitler was telling. nt

[IntiRaymi]

20. Indirect? You've gotta be kidding.

The article is a verbal diarrhea full of direct allusions to problems that jewish people have had with EUROPEAN countries, not arab ones. And somehow this is justification to smear an AMERICAN over Israel's treatment of an ARAB people.

[bemildred]

22. Well, implicit, then, he doesn't use the "H" word. nt

[IntiRaymi]

19. Juicy quotes from the chronwatch article:

- Apparently the written word is not enough, so Carter has taken his grudge against Israel on tour.

- ... all that makes no difference once you've got your mind made up and your heart is brimming with hostility, hatred, and bigotry.

- ... to promote his Mein Kampf, his struggle to enlist the rest of us in joining his campaign to blow down the single house the Jews built to spare themselves further pogroms and genocides.

- Carter's protocols have already, and quickly, found enough readers to make it a best-seller.

And, rolling out la piece de la resistance ....

- If you can't read Carter's book, read his lips, as I did on C-Span. The man is an anti-Semite.

:rofl:

The author of this article is not trying to make any sense here. Just establishing the language to be used in the public debate over these issues. If someone were to speak this out loud, you would sound EXACTLY like Michael 'Savage' Weiner, who represents the true face of these issues in America.
Such boring stuff...

[bemildred]

21. Don't push it too far.

As Joad pointed out, it's a forbidden site.

I'm mostly struck at this point, in the argument over Jimmy's book, by the low level of criticism, we have this sort of thing, and a tenuous charge of plagiarism, which is a hard thing to prove. Nothing on the substance of his argument. Yet it appears to me that better arguments against his point of view are not that hard to come by. He seems more interested in stimulating a discussion that is moribund than in hedging his position about with defense fortifications, rhetorically speaking, in any case.

[IntiRaymi]

23. The charge of plagiarism may or may not matter.

Not having read it, and not being an encyclopedia containing the he said/she said crap that so distinguishes the arguments over the middle east, I have to go with what I perceive as being the overt purpose of the book. You state it quite clearly: "He seems more interested in stimulating a discussion that is moribund".
This is all that matters to me. He poses no existential threat to Israel as it is constituted, present-day, so complaints about his ulterior motives are best ignored. So let him have it, he has banked his good name on the book, and on his efforts on behalf of Palestinian people.
I sense something good emerging from this dialectic...

[bemildred]

28. The plagiarism charge is almost certainly bullshit.

People writing on the same subject can easily say similar things, and maps of the same area can easily look similar too. This book is not an academic work, or a serious work of history, it is a political discussion. This is far from the first time that this sort of charge has come up about works on this subject. Mr Dershowitz himself, IIRC, has been charged with it by Mr Finkelstein with regard to one of his polemics in favor of Israel.

[Tom Joad]

33. I think the overreaction to Carter's book is that it breaks the taboo,

if even in the most moderate way, of not subscribing to the Israeli line. Once that taboo is broken, there might be all sorts of criticism... mainstream commentators, and even current politicians, may feel free to criticize Israel like any other nation. the dam may be broken.

It's like the kid who told the truth about the naked emperor. The child spoke up and began something that could not be contained.

[bemildred]

34. Yeah, exactly.

And he has credibility.

[Tom Joad]

98. For those that are worried that it will change the whole debate in the US....

I think their fears are very much justified.
Carter's book will change everything. It comes at a time when there is increased interest in looking differently at the US relationship with Israel.

[breakaleg]

41. If it can bring attention to this struggle, then it's worth it.

Also at the bottom of the transcript linked he explains what he meant by the title of his book. I wonder why there is not much discussion of that here.

[msmcghee]

69. What it's brought attention to is Carter's . .

.. deep and abiding hatred of Israel and the people who live there.

[IntiRaymi]

84. I hear an echo!

[everythingsxen]

87. Of what?

[KoKo]

96. Breaking the Taboo and pointing out that Bush refuses to try to

work for peace with I/P instead preferring to throw the whole Middle East into Turmoil and War because of psychological issues he has with his father which threw him into the arms of folks to who Peace is not profitable therefore it should not be discussed.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IntiRaymi]

30. I know which forums you are referring to.

For some reason, mention of these forums remains a verboten topic, so must live with that.
What alarms me is that they are making lists...investigating what they can...identifying those that they are able to...
What a paranoid, irrational bunch!

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

97. There are people participating in this forum who call

DU participants and moderators Nazis. If that's not hate Cali, I don't know what is.

[msmcghee]

99. I don't think I've ever seen such statements.

However, both sides in this forum hold some strong views. It is good that we have rules although they could be better described. I have trouble understanding where the line is at times.

In the interest of "enlightened debate" it would be good to avoid personalizing the discussions. Some people here seldom write a post that does not include some cleverly embedded insult.

When someone is insulted, if they don't respond one better, the other side will invariably adopt a "guess I told you" attitude - which is rubbing salt in the wound of the original insult. So people do respond and the cycle escalates until whole sub-threads get deleted - as they should. I admit that I get sucked into those cycles as much as anyone else.

However, my interest here is not in insulting anyone or being insulted. I find the topic greatly interesting on several levels, from the philosophical and moral, all the way down to the psychological and neural.

Despite whatever insults we have traded in the past I don't hold grudges. What happened in the past is over and I will read and respond to your posts based on the words you put in it. Not on any past exchanges. Out of respect for the very serious subject matter here that is a matter of life and death to real people - I will keep trying to focus more on the substance than the insults - and I hope you (and others) will do the same.

[dogday]

101. There are those on this forum who want to label

and tag everyone and everything that is not agreed upon... This is the American way, to discuss what we like and don't like. I agree some goes over the top with the hate speech, but I also feel that the labeling of others is over the top as well...

[cali]

102. Tom, please provide some evidence

of this. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I post regularly here, and I've never seen anyone call a mod or a participant a nazi. In any case, on this very thread, you just stated that some people on this thread are worse than a particularly vile and hateful man, despite the fact that no one on this thread has posted anything remotely like the shit that regularly issues from his mouth. It appears you don't see the irony in that.

[Tom Joad]

103. You need to know where to look, not only on DU, but in forums

elsewhere on the internet where a few sick DU members post.

The references to nazis here are deleted. Some have just been deleted recently.

[bemildred]

12. Author on Jewish Refugees Who Changed the World Comes to Carter Library

ATLANTA, GA. (November 27, 2006) - Bestselling journalist Kati Marton tells the incredible stories of nine Hungarian Jews who fled from the Nazis and ended up having a major impact on the world at the Carter Presidential Library. Marton will speak and sign copies of her book "The Great Escape: Nine Jews Who Fled Hitler and Changed the World ," at 7:30 p.m. Monday, December 4th. The Carter Presidential Library lecture and book-signing is free and open to the public. Barnes and Noble will have copies of Marton's book for sale at the event. Marton's appearance is co-sponsored by the Georgia Center for the Book.

---

Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel says "Kati Marton's wonderful book celebrates what is glorious and eternal in the human condition." Tom Brokaw said "Kati Marton tells this astonishing story with grace and passion, a sharp eye for telling detail and the broad sweep of history."

Marton was born in Hungary and escaped to the United States after the failed 1956 Hungarian Revolution. She is the author of the New York Times bestseller "Hidden Power" and is an award-winning journalist.

Kati Marton's lecture and book-sign is free and open to the
public. For more information, visit www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov or call 404-865-7109.

http://www.theweekly.com/news/2006/November/27/Kati_Marton.html

[msmcghee]

92. This thread is a good example of dozens of . .

. . statements of what people want to believe about an actual event.

Just to wrap it up, if anyone is actually interested in what was said and what was meant by those words, here is the video, where you can see their facial expressions and their demeanor and their body language.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1hvcz3hTDvU

It's reality TV at its best.

I'm off to bed.

[Violet_Crumble]

93. My last word on this...

I do think from reading some of the reviews of his book that some of the attacks on Jimmy Carter are extremely vicious and that the intent is to try to deter other public figures from writing books on the conflict that those Defenders Of Israel feel is in any way critical of Israel. And I'm sure some of it is done with the intent of trying to persuade gullible Americans out there that reading the book is an action more evil than forcing someone to sit through an entire Barry Mannilow CD played at high volume. Which is why I am more determined than I was before to read the book for myself. Unfortunately it isn't released here until the new year so by the time I read it all this kerfuffle will be over coz over here there's not the same hysteria over things to do with the I/P conflict...

[Tom Joad]

100. Israeli leaders do have a US President they can honor... GW Bush

Bush gives go-ahead for 'Bush Center' in Israel

WASHINGTON - U.S. President George Bush was informed on Tuesday of an initiative to establish a center under his name in Israel, as a sign of gratitude for his support for the country and its security. Outgoing Israeli Ambassador to the United States Daniel Ayalon asked Bush for the go-ahead to establish such a center during a farewell meeting with the president and his deputy, Dick Cheney.

Bush told Ayalon that "freedom" would be a worthy subject for the center to focus on.

Ayalon has yet to approach donors with a request to finance the establishment of the "Bush Center" in Israel, but does not expect to encounter difficulties when it comes to raising the funds. The outgoing ambassador will continue to work on the matter with White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=788626&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

It is fascinating that while Bush is hoping to complete his term and live the rest of his life uncharged for his crimes against humanity, that the leaders of Israel see fit to build this center to honor his work in Israel. Is it because the current Israeli leadership and Bush are very similar in their world outlook? It just could be...