Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Jimmy Carter...just another liberal anti-semite...

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408

    Jimmy Carter...just another liberal anti-semite...

    [QUOTE][B]Adviser to Jimmy Carter resigns in dispute over book on Palestinians and apartheid
    By Brenda Goodman and Julie Bosman Published: December 7, 2006[/B]

    ATLANTA: An adviser to former President Jimmy Carter and onetime executive director of the Carter Center has publicly parted ways with his former boss, citing concerns with the accuracy and integrity of Carter's latest book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid."

    The adviser, Kenneth Stein, a professor of Middle Eastern history and political science at Emory University in Atlanta, resigned his position Tuesday as a fellow with the Carter Center, ending a 23-year association with the institution.

    In a two-page letter explaining his action, Stein called the book "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments." Stein said he had used similar language in a private letter he sent to Carter but received no reply.

    "In the letter to him, I told him, 'It's your prerogative to write anything you want when you want,'" Stein said Wednesday in a telephone interview. "That's not why I'm resigning."

    Today in Americas

    Stein said he admired the former president's accomplishments but felt that he had to distance himself from the Carter Center and the book, which was published by Simon & Schuster.

    Deanna Congelio, a spokeswoman for Carter, released this statement with his response: "Although Professor Kenneth Stein has not been actively involved with the Carter Center for more than 12 years, I regret his resignation from the titular position as a fellow." It did not address Stein's criticism of the book.

    That criticism is the latest in a growing chorus of academics who have taken issue with the book, including David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

    "I was just very saddened by it," Makovsky said. "I just found so many errors."

    Carter's use of "apartheid" in the title has prompted much of the dispute. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles released a statement Monday saying the former president harbors bias against Israel. "There is no Israeli apartheid policy, and President Carter knows it," the statement said.

    David Rosenthal, the publisher of Simon & Schuster, said of Carter, "We're confident in his work," adding, "I have no reason to doubt President Carter's research."
    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/07/news/carter.php[/url]

  2. #2
    I have to agree with you here CB although I wouldn't call Carter an anti-Semite. I have read Israeli op-ed pieces on the book and they have said that Carter has lost all credibility as a diplomat in the area and although they admire what he accomplished in Camp David they are deeply disappointed in him.

    I have lost a lot of respect for him also and I think that there will be a strong backlash against him as a result of the book.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    holy sh!t...

    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]I have to agree with you here CB although I wouldn't call Carter an anti-Semite. I have read Israeli op-ed pieces on the book and they have said that Carter has lost all credibility as a diplomat in the area and although they admire what he accomplished in Camp David they are deeply disappointed in him.

    I have lost a lot of respect for him also and I think that there will be a strong backlash against him as a result of the book.[/QUOTE]

    $1-bills gotta be falling from the sky....lemme go check....

  4. #4
    My son went to Emory and was a Political Science major. He said that Stein is a very prominent and respected authority in the field of Middle East Studies.

  5. #5
    Dershowitz on the Carter book.
    [URL]http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2006/12/04_dershowitz.php[/URL]

  6. #6
    There is always two sides to every story. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a human tragedy that has gone on too long. Both sides have suffered as a result. To completely ignore the plight of the palestinian people and the oppression they face at the hands of the Israeli people is truly sad.

    Why is it that the debate about Israel's oppression of the palestinians is more open in Israel than it is in the USA? There is a good proportion of Israelis who sympathize with the Palestinian's suffering and openly Protest Israel's treatment of these people. They do so freely and with honest debate in Israel w/o being called anti-semites or other derogatory names. Yet when someone backs up the palestinians in the USA , they are immediately attacked , called anti-semitic, ridiculed and not given fair press? Why?
    Why cant Americans have an open debate from both sides the way they do in Israel?

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]There is always two sides to every story. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a human tragedy that has gone on too long. Both sides have suffered as a result. To completely ignore the plight of the palestinian people and the oppression they face at the hands of the Israeli people is truly sad.

    Why is it that the debate about Israel's oppression of the palestinians is more open in Israel than it is in the USA? There is a good proportion of Israelis who sympathize with the Palestinian's suffering and openly Protest Israel's treatment of these people. They do so freely and with honest debate in Israel w/o being called anti-semites or other derogatory names. Yet when someone backs up the palestinians in the USA , they are immediately attacked , called anti-semitic, ridiculed and not given fair press? Why?
    Why cant Americans have an open debate from both sides the way they do in Israel?[/QUOTE]
    Ken I'm all for open debates. Just be factual. Carter has written a book where there are so many factual errors. I said I don't think he is an anti-Semite but obviously when it comes to this issue he is biased.

    Also his title is completely inflamatory and misleading. In the book he says that Israel is not like South Africa in how they treat the people. The title refers to the settlements on the West Bank taking over Palestinian land. Than why use the word apartheid?
    Last edited by Queens Jet Fan; 12-07-2006 at 11:58 PM.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]There is always two sides to every story. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a human tragedy that has gone on too long. Both sides have suffered as a result. To completely ignore the plight of the palestinian people and the oppression they face at the hands of the Israeli people is truly sad.

    Why is it that the debate about Israel's oppression of the palestinians is more open in Israel than it is in the USA? There is a good proportion of Israelis who sympathize with the Palestinian's suffering and openly Protest Israel's treatment of these people. They do so freely and with honest debate in Israel w/o being called anti-semites or other derogatory names. Yet when someone backs up the palestinians in the USA , they are immediately attacked , called anti-semitic, ridiculed and not given fair press? Why?
    Why cant Americans have an open debate from both sides the way they do in Israel?[/QUOTE]

    pleeeze.....enough with your above it all "why can't we debate" bullsh!t...

    The same Israelis who you claim weep for the Pali's today call carter repugnant....

    carter is not interested in debate- he accuses Israel of one of the worst forms of racism, apartheid....the same nation he accuses of apartheid barely a year ago forcibly removed their own citizens to give land back to the Pali's in Gaza....

    It's worse than pathetic to refer to Israel's actions as apartheid it is outright ignorant....then again this is jimmy carter so why am I not surprised...

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]pleeeze.....enough with your above it all "why can't we debate" bullsh!t...

    The same Israelis who you claim weep for the Pali's today call carter repugnant....

    carter is not interested in debate- he accuses Israel of one of the worst forms of racism, apartheid....the same nation he accuses of apartheid barely a year ago forcibly removed their own citizens to give land back to the Pali's in Gaza....

    It's worse than pathetic to refer to Israel's actions as apartheid it is outright ignorant....then again this is jimmy carter so why am I not surprised...[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for proving my point!

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Ken I'm all for open debates. Just be factual. Carter has written a book where there are so many factual errors. I said I don't think he is an anti-Semite but obviously when it comes to this issue he is biased.

    Also his title is completely inflamatory and misleading. In the book he says that Israel is not like South Africa in how they treat the people. The title refers to the settlements on the West Bank taking over Palestinian land. Than why use the word apartheid?[/QUOTE]

    I havent read the book. And I dont think you did either. So i will reserve judgement. As for the so called factual errors, im not sure which ones you are rferring to. Is his title inflammatory? Yes, intentionally im sure. Misleading? Maybe, but maybe not.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Thanks for proving my point![/QUOTE]

    as is the case with all your posts you have no point....

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]I havent read the book. And I dont think you did either. So i will reserve judgement. As for the so called factual errors, im not sure which ones you are rferring to. Is his title inflammatory? Yes, intentionally im sure. Misleading? Maybe, but maybe not.[/QUOTE]
    You are right I haven't read the book but I have heard him speak about it and read reviews of it.

    Factual errors. Here is a small list:
    [QUOTE]In addition to the numerous errors and distortions pointed out by Dershowitz, there are many other problems in the book. Almost every page is problematic, so this list is not complete.

    • Carter claims Israel has been the primary obstacle to peace, that Arab leaders have long sought peace while Israel preferred holding on to "Palestinian land" over peace, and that if only Israel would "[withdraw] to the 1967 border as specified in the U.N. Resolution 242...", there would be peace.

    Aside from his obviously questionable opinions, Carter is factually wrong when he asserts that U.N. Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice line. He has repeated this serious falsehood in many interviews, such as on the November 28 PBS NewsHour:

    "The demand is for them to give back all the land. The United Nations resolutions that apply, the agreements that have been made at Camp David under me and later at Oslo for which the Israeli leaders received the Nobel Peace Prizes, was [sic] based on Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories."

    He mischaracterizes UN resolutions and apparently has forgotten what he himself signed as a witness to the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which states in Section A1c: "The negotiations [concerning the West Bank and Gaza] shall be based on all the provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements."

    To claim now that the very agreement he witnessed and signed specifies withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines is outrageous. [While the 1979 Camp David document again mentions UN Resolution 242, it makes no further mention of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. It instead deals with Israeli-Egyptian relations, and includes a map of the Israel-Egypt International Boundary (Annex II). Tellingly, no maps demarcating any boundary between Israel and the Palestinians are appended to the Camp David documents, Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords, or the "road map".]

    UN Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the land to the "1967 border", since there is no such border. The "green line" is merely the 1949 armistice line and the drafters of 242 explicitly stated that this line was not a "secure border" -- which 242 calls for.

    The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."

    The American UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that, "The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and the 'June 5, 1967 lines' ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." This would encompass "less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure."

    The reasoning of the United States and its allies at the time was clear: Any resolution which, in the face of the aggressive war launched in 1967 against Israel, required complete Israeli withdrawal, would have been seen as a reward for aggression and an invitation to future aggression. This is assuredly not what the UN voted for, or had in mind, when it passed Resolution 242.

    For more details on the meaning of 242, click here.

    - Many media outlets have corrected erroneous characterizations of 242 (prompted by CAMERA), including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The corrections clarify that 242 does not require Israel to give all the land acquired in the 67 War to the Palestinians. For example:


    Correction (New York Times, 9/8/00): An article on Wednesday about the Middle East peace talks referred incorrectly to United Nations resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Middle East War, calls for Israel's armed forces to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," no resolution calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territory, including East Jerusalem, occupied in the war.

    Correction (Wall Street Journal, 5/11/04): United Nations Security Council resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied" in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, but doesn't specify that the withdrawal should be from all such territories. An International page article Friday incorrectly stated that Security Council resolutions call for Israel to withdraw from all land captured in the 1967 war.

    • Similarly, Carter repeatedly errs when he asserts that the West Bank is "Palestinian land," rather than disputed land whose (likely) division and designation will be decided through negotiations (as per Resolution 242).

    For example, Carter said on the Nov 28 Newshour:

    "And I chose this title very carefully. It's Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians' territory, not Israel."

    • In his book, Carter almost always presents Israeli leaders in a negative light, and they are frequently described as trying to impede the peace process. In contrast, Carter describes despotic Arab leaders in glowing terms, quotes them at length, without any comments about the accuracy of their statements. He writes, for instance,

    "When I met with Yasir Arafat in 1990, he stated 'The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel.' "

    Carter fails to note that Arafat and the PLO have frequently called for the destruction of Israel and that the destruction of Israel is a key part of the PLO Charter (most explicitly in Articles 15 and 22):

    "Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence..." (from Article 22).

    Arafat regularly called for violence against Israel. In a speech to Palestinian Arab leaders from Hebron, broadcast on official PA Television on January 26, 2002, Arafat urged:

    "Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad!"

    Carter follows up the absurd quotation from Arafat by describing the PLO in admiring language, without mentioning the terror so central to their agenda.

    • Carter spends much of the book conveying Arab grievances against Israel, while rarely providing any context from the Israeli perspective. When he does, it is perfunctory and brief. While terror against Israel is mentioned, it is rare and sharply minimized.

    • The vicious incitement against Israel and Jews by the Arabs is treated as a trivial complaint rather than as the fuel that keeps the flame of bigotry and violence alive. The only time Carter mentions incitement is to complain that the Israelis insisted on cessation of incitement against Israel, "but the Roadmap cannot state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians."

    Since there is no state-sponsored anti-Arab incitement in Israel, and incitement against Arabs is actually a crime in Israel, it would have been misleading to include a proscription against it in the Roadmap. That would have made it seem that incitement in Israel was comparable to the massive, systemic incitement in Palestinian society.

    As for his reference to "Israel must cease violence...against the Palestinians," he appears to morally equate Israeli counter-terror measures with Palestinian terror against Israeli civilians.

    • In describing what led to the conflicts this year between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and Hezbollah, Carter continues his pattern of minimizing Arab violence, thereby placing Israel's military responses into question due to the lack of context. Carter mentions the abduction of the Israeli soldiers, but fails to inform his readers about the rockets from Gaza that were being fired daily at Israeli civilians in southwest Israel and omits that Hezbollah did much more than abduct 2 soldiers; before the abduction, they fired missiles at Israeli communities in northern Israel.

    • Carter obfuscates important aspects of history. Here's how he describes the British giving almost all of Mandate Palestine—78 percent—to Emir Abdullah after World War I to create Transjordan (later renamed Jordan): "Another throne was needed, so an emirate called Transjordan was created out of some remote desert regions of the Palestine Mandate ..." [emphasis added]

    • He writes of various Arab leaders accepting the two-state solution, and sometimes mentions that they also require the so-called right of return (of the millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel, as opposed to the future state of Palestine). But Carter doesn't explain that due to the high Arab birthrate, the so-called right of return would quickly turn Israel into another Arab state, transforming the two-state (Arab and Jewish) solution into a two-Arab states solution. While he writes of the many items he feels are unreasonable deal-breakers demanded by Israel, he never addresses the Arab demands that are deal-breakers for Israel.

    • In his conclusion, Carter accuses the American government of being "submissive," claiming that due to "powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Israel dominate in our media ..."

    Carter's claim that "voices from Israel dominate in our media" is especially ironic at a time when Carter himself is all over the media spreading his anti-Israel message. And since Carter is prone to demonizing Israel, it likely never occurred to him that perhaps our politicians don't frequently criticize Israeli government decisions because Israel shares our values of democracy, pluralism and the sanctity of life, and its decisions are, on the whole, fair and just.

    • Apparently admiringly, Carter writes: "At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan." That Carter apparently feels this is a more realistic, helpful worldview is revealing.
    In general, Carter holds Israel to an unreasonably high standard of almost pacifist behavior, while holding the Arabs to no standard at all. In his world, the terror against Israel has been minimal, hardly worth mentioning and certainly not important enough for Israelis to respond to or for the world community to condemn. The Arabs should suffer no consequences for continuing to attack and terrorize Israel, for continuing to indoctrinate their population to see Jews as sub-humans who deserve to be murdered. Carter advocates having the Arabs' maximalist demands rewarded. It is Israel who must make all the concessions and sacrifices. The Arabs' bigotry and supremacist attitudes regarding non-Muslims and the west - attitudes central to the conflict -- are entirely ignored by Carter.

    Since Carter is a former president, and because he is well known for his work on Habitat for Humanity, interviewers are for the most part being entirely deferential to him, while rarely pointing out that his book and statements are filled with inaccuracies and distortions. But Carter should not be allowed to rewrite history and erase decades of Arab bigotry, rejectionism and terror, while inventing Israeli intransigence and opposition to peace[/QUOTE]
    [URL]http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1238[/URL]
    Do I need to read the book to say that there is a general problem with facts here?

  13. #13
    You would think after the embarrassment that was the Carter Administration, by far the worst economic, patriotic and foreign affair chapter in our country's history, that Carter would have the humility to just be quiet and go away with his tail between his legs. Getting Jimmy Carter's advice on the success in the Middle East is like asking Fidel Castro's advice on protecting human rights. Oh, wait, didn't the UN put Castro in charge of human rights a while ago? No wonder Carter likes the UN...................

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=JCnflies]You would think after the embarrassment that was the Carter Administration, by far the worst economic, patriotic and foreign affair chapter in our country's history, that Carter would have the humility to just be quiet and go away with his tail between his legs. Getting Jimmy Carter's advice on the success in the Middle East is like asking Fidel Castro's advice on protecting human rights. Oh, wait, didn't the UN put Castro in charge of human rights a while ago? No wonder Carter likes the UN...................[/QUOTE]

    what's worse is the way he seemingly brags about feeling at home with terrorist thugs....

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE]In his conclusion, Carter accuses the American government of being "submissive," claiming that due to "powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Israel dominate in our media ..."

    Carter's claim that "voices from Israel dominate in our media" is especially ironic at a time when Carter himself is all over the media spreading his anti-Israel message. And since Carter is prone to demonizing Israel, it likely never occurred to him that perhaps our politicians don't frequently criticize Israeli government decisions because Israel shares our values of democracy, pluralism and the sanctity of life, and its decisions are, on the whole, fair and just. [/QUOTE]

    as with most lunatic leftsts, including many on this forum- America and Israel are responsible for the ills of the world.....

  16. #16
    The Palestinians are their own worst enemy. They align themselves with thugs and murderers and then wonder why the west doesn't care about them. The truth be told most of the Middle East could careless about them, they just use them!

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan]The Palestinians are their own worst enemy. They align themselves with thugs and murderers and then wonder why the west doesn't care about them. The truth be told most of the Middle East could careless about them, they just use them![/QUOTE]

    BINGO!!!!

    While the Pali's were treated inhumanely for the longest time the fact is they've had opportunity after opportunity the past 15 years to take their destiny into their own hands, thanks to America and Israel (oh, by the way)...

    But they continually fuq it up...why??

    Because killing Jews and annihilating Israel is a greater priority than their own livelihood...
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 12-08-2006 at 12:30 PM.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]holy sh!t...



    $1-bills gotta be falling from the sky....lemme go check....[/QUOTE]


    LOL

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,524
    [B]Deanna Congelio, a spokeswoman for Carter, released this statement with his response: "Although Professor Kenneth Stein has not been actively involved with the Carter Center for more than 12 years, I regret his resignation from the titular position as a fellow." It did not address Stein's criticism of the book.[/B]

    This is why I find politics interesting: although Ms Congelio "did not address Stein's criticism of the book", she does get in 2 shots at Stein to paint him as out of touch, and possibly incompetent: he's not a real fellow, just has the "titular position", and "not actively involved for more than 12 years".

    Its amazing that when politicians do this in front of an audience, not many journalists demand an answer, and almost all just accept obfuscation and misdirection.

  20. #20
    Jimmy Carter is completely evil.

    Thank G-d there's football today.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us