Carter Agrees to Book Talk at Brandeis (AP)

[Eugene]

Carter Agrees to Book Talk at Brandeis

The Associated Press
Thursday, January 11, 2007; 10:10 AM

WALTHAM, Mass. -- Former President Carter will visit Brandeis University
to discuss his book on Palestine but won't debate academic Alan Dershowitz
as originally proposed, a Carter spokeswoman and university officials said.

Carter will speak for about 15 minutes and then answer questions for 45 minutes
during the visit, tentatively scheduled for Jan. 23.

Some students and faculty had objected when the speaking invitation to Carter,
the Nobel Peace Prize winner, suggested the debate with Dershowitz, a Harvard
Law professor who has desparaged the book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."
They said Carter should be invited to campus without conditions.

"We're pleased that this has all worked out," Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo
said. "President Carter looks forward to the opportunity to having a dialogue
with everyone at Brandeis."

-snip-

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100505.html

[Phx_Dem]

1. Carter visit

Maybe someone can ask him to explain this quote from his book:

"It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

[Tarc]

2. Not all that confusing, really.

Muslim groups must agree to stop bombings if Israel stops its own illegal actions, such as settlements in occupied territories, holding on to Golan, etc...

[Phx_Dem]

3. So suicide attacks

are a reasonable response to perceived Israeli oppression? You agree?

[Tarc]

4. Irrelevant

Both sides are committing acts that are contrary to the peace process. If the process to to have a chance at success, then both must cease their respective actions.

[Phx_Dem]

5. Setting up a few trailers in unoccupied areas

is hardly the same thing as killing innocent civilians the way suicide bombers do. Don't assume I think all the settlememts are OK, but your comparison is beyond stupid.

Since you don't or can't answer my question directly I am going to assume that you think suicide bombing is a legit form of resistance, just like Mr. Carter does.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Hold on there...

Two things:

1. The poster yr replying to didn't make a comparison between suicide bombings and outposts in the Occupied Territories. What they said was: 'Muslim groups must agree to stop bombings if Israel stops its own illegal actions, such as settlements in occupied territories, holding on to Golan, etc...'

2. What I find beyond stupid is to claim as a matter of fact that Jimmy Carter supports suicide bombings. Given his comments in the past where he voices his opposition to them and that it takes a stretch to read that sentence as a support of suicide bombing, I'm always a bit suspicious of quotes that aren't accompanied by any context, so seeing as how you've read the book and I can't until it's released here early next month, could you post the entire paragraph that sentence was in?

[furman]

8. Quote by Carter in his book condoning suicide bombings

from page 213:

"It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

-Jimmy Carter


Here is an excerpt from the book, containing the quote above.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4926162

[bemildred]

10. He condones nothing.

The clear meaning of that sentence is that the Arabs must guarantee that Israel will live in peace if certain conditions (International Law, The Roadmap for Peace) are accepted by Israel. He even uses the 'T' word, doesn't call it "resistance" or anything of that sort; and it is clear that he considers suicide bombings "acts of terrorism", as in: "suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism". Calling suicide bombing "acts of terrorism" condones them only in the most tortured (no joke intended) logic.

[furman]

12. No, Carter is legitimizing terrorism until Israel unilaterally acts

It seems quite clear that Carter is condoning suicide bombings and terrorist acts.
He does not call for an unconditional end to Palestinian terrorism.

Please see Dr. Melvin Konner's recent letter to the Carter Center:
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=1613

However, I will call your attention to a sentence on p. 213 that had not stood out for me the first time I read it: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

As someone who has lived his life as a professional reader and writer, I cannot find any way to read this sentence that does not condone the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally follows President Carter's prescription for peace. This sentence, simply put, makes President Carter an apologist for terrorists and places my children, along with all Jews everywhere, in greater danger.

See also this piece by dovish commentator Dr. Gidon D. Remba, who is president of Chicago Peace Now :
http://tough-dove-israel.blogspot.com/2006/12/carters-palestine-israel-book-its-even.html

Despite his well-deserved reputation as a humanitarian and an advocate of peace, Carter, remarkably, does not call for an unconditional end to Palestinian "suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism." (p. 213) Instead he says that "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." In short--forget about Palestinian confidence-, trust- or peace-building measures. Carter does not require the Palestinians to declare an end to suicide bombings until Israel stops "oppressing them." To be sure, Carter does condemn suicide bombings as morally reprehensible and politically counterproductive for the Palestinians. But he is not prepared to demand a cessation of such heinous acts, which are war crimes, until Israel ends its own violations. Carter's position however is itself in violation of the laws of war, which do not permit one party to commit war crimes on the grounds that the other party is already committing them, or in response to political injustice. Under international humanitarian law, both sides have an independent and unconditional duty to refrain from breaches of the laws of war. But Carter can't bring himself to place any such expectation on the poor, victimized Palestinians, who can keep massacring Israeli children until Israel commits to stopping its evil apartheid oppression in the West Bank and Gaza. When it comes to human rights and peace, Carter grades the Palestinians on a curve.

[bemildred]

13. Bullshit.

The words mean what they say, not some other drivel more suited to these writer's taste; nor does the omission of some preferred verbal formula constitute either the condoning or the legitimization of anything at all. It is one thing to disagree with his argument, and another entirely to put words in his mouth based on what he did not say. One can only wonder how long these "thinkers" spent in searching out this sentence to focus their imaginations on.

Edit: That sentence does not say that Israel should do anything at all, it says that the Arabs should reassure Israel about the beneficial effects of certain future actions Israel might choose to take, that the Arabs should make guarantees to Israel about the utility of its prospective adherence to international law and the Road Map.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Well said, bemildred...

First Jimmy Carter's an antisemite, now he's a terrorist supporter. I'm going to have to grab a copy of his book as soon as it's released here to see for myself! ;)

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. I just finished the book last night

In some ways it's hard for me to understand what all the fuss is all about. To a large extent he lays out the history according to the Israeli narrative, certainly not the Palestinian narrative. He bends over backward over and over again to give credit where credit is due to Israel and to be respectful.

In fact he makes a number of statements that I'm sure most Palestinians and pro-Palestinians would have problems with.

However he does explain the on-the-ground reality for life under occupation in the Occupied Territories. And he does explain how the Palestinians have never be made a reasonable offer that they could possibly accept.

Amazon link to President Carter's book: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (Hardcover) :

http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Peace-Apartheid-Jimmy-Carter/dp/0743285026/ref=pd_ts_b_2/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books


.

[Shaktimaan]

35. Not by a long shot.

To a large extent he lays out the history according to the Israeli narrative, certainly not the Palestinian narrative. He bends over backward over and over again to give credit where credit is due to Israel and to be respectful.

The history Carter outlined was very much skewed towards the Palestinian view. It was more akin to what you would see on a partisan website like "ifamericansknew" as opposed to a straightforward historical text. For example, in his initial timeline he refers to the first widescale outbreak of violence, the Arab Uprising, which lasted 3 years during which time over 5000 people lost their lives by saying, "British troops tried to assert control but violence continued." That's it. There isn't even a sentence saying that violence ever broke out. Just that it "continued."

But right after that he makes a point of specifically calling out the much smaller Jewish violent response to the 1939 white paper that limited Jewish immigration to Palestine. This is especially biased because the white paper itself was an attempt to appease the Arab factions that rioted in the uprising. It gives false implications as to the motives and goals of every side during that period in a way that dishonestly places the Jews in a particularly bad light, making it seem as though they began the spate of violence.

He does shit like this throughout the whole book.

[furman]

19. Resignation letter from 14 Carter Center board members agree that Carter condones terror

Many people disagree with you, bemildred.

I suggest you read this mass resignation letter in its entirety.

And finally, it is a disturbing statement to write: "that it is imperative, that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." In this sentence you clearly suggest that you are condoning violence against Israelis until they do certain things (p.213).

[bemildred]

20. In certain people, fancy shoes will "suggest" sexual activity.

That doesn't, in fact, have anything in particular to do with the shoes, and it has everything to do with the suggestible people. I think the same situation applies here. Whatever Mr. Carter's words might "suggest" to certain people, his meaning is clear enough, and it is that meaning by which his intent ought to be judged. Would you want to be judged and condemned on the basis of others' paranoid fantasies?

As for the "mass resignation", it is another orchestrated political dog-and-pony show designed to discredit Mr. Carter, in the vain hope that somehow such will prevent his words from being read or understood.

[furman]

21. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions of the word "when"

From Merriam-Webster online dictionary :

Main Entry: when
Function: conjunction
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hwanne, hwenne, from hwanne, hwenne, adverb
1 a : at or during the time that : WHILE <went fishing when he was a boy> b : just at the moment that <stop writing when the bell rings> c : at any or every time that <when he listens to music, he falls asleep>
2 : in the event that : IF <a contestant is disqualified when he disobeys the rules>
3 a : considering that <why use water at all when you can drown in it -- Stuart Chase> b : in spite of the fact that : ALTHOUGH <quit politics when I might have had a great career in it>
4 : the time or occasion at or in which <tomorrow is when we must decide> <humor is when you laugh -- Earl Rovit>


The definitions that make grammatical sense to me in this context are:

at or during the time that
just at the moment that
at any or every time that
in the event that
if
the time or occasion at or in which


The following sentence fragments substitute the word "when" with these definitions.
Read them and decide for yourself how it sounds from a grammatical standpoint.


original:
that it is imperative, that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that
they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism "when" international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.


that it is imperative, that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism "at or during the time that" international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.

that it is imperative, that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism "just at the moment that" international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.

that it is imperative, that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism "at any or every time that" international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.

that it is imperative, that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism "in the event that" international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.

that it is imperative, that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism "if" international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.

that it is imperative, that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism "the time or occasion at or in which" international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.


How else can you interpret this sentence using accepted English grammar to mean something else besides that Carter excuses Palestinian terrorism until such time that Israel accepts "international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace"?

[bemildred]

22. "in the event that" appears to be the correct usage here, to me.

The fact that he calls them "acts of terrorism", a clearly pejorative term, is enough to prove that he condemns rather that approves such activities.

[furman]

23. Then why does Carter not call for unconditional cessation of Palestinian terror?

While he may not approve of Palestinian violence, Carter does not explictly call for an immediate end to it.

You are putting words in his mouth. The use of the term "acts of terrorism" does not prove anything.

[bemildred]

24. In his own words:

The three most basic premises are quite clear:

1. Israel's right to exist - and to live in peace - must be recognized and accepted by Palestinians and all other neighbors;

2. The killing of innocent people by suicide bombs or other acts of violence cannot be condoned; and

3. Palestinians must live in peace and dignity, and permanent Israeli settlements on their land are a major obstacle to this goal.

I suggest you read the whole thing ...

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc2310.html

[furman]

25. Colin Powell states that Palestinian violence must stop, but Carter does not

Secretary of State Colin Powell stated what is still the current American position concerning Middle East peace:

"The Palestinian leadership must end violence, stop incitement, and prepare their people for the hard compromises ahead. All in the Arab world must make unmistakably clear, through their own actions, their acceptance of Israel and their commitment to a negotiated settlement. Israel must be willing to end its occupation, consistent with the principles embodied in Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and accept a viable Palestinian state in which Palestinians can determine their own future on their own land and live in dignity and security."

Please show me an excerpt by Jimmy Carter where he is as explicit as this or where he states he supports the "current American position" as iterated by Colin Powell.
I can't find it in this piece, sorry.

[bemildred]

26. What part of "cannot be condoned" do you not get? nt

[furman]

28. Not an explicit call for ending terrorism

This statement is quite vague.
Who is considered innocent?
What are 'other means of violence'?
Does he imply that Israeli military operations against terrorists and their supporters are unacceptable as well?

In Carter's view terrorism may be deplorable, but he seems to accept it as reality that Palestinians will continue until Israel offers more concessions first.

Ending Palestinian terrorism is a precondition for further negotations based on a set of reservations Israel submitted along with its acceptance of the Road Map.
Anything less than that will lead to stalemate, and Carter knows it.
He needs to say this very clearly in order for him to be seen as an honest broker for peace.

[bemildred]

29. Indeed, very perceptive of you to see all that.

One short sentence about terrorism not being condoned only scratches the surface of the subject. I look forward to your detailed discussion of your views on all those matters.

[bemildred]

27. You could say something like:

"Jimmy Carter does not condemn terrorism vigorously enough, or often enough, to suit me!" and there you would be on solid ground. When it comes to your own views, you are sovereign. But if you want to claim Jimmy C. "condones" terrorism, when he clearly says it cannot be condoned, well, you just don't have a leg to stand on. You might as well admit that nothing he says is going to make any difference in what you think, your mind's made up and not to be changed by mere facts.

[Howardx]

30. interesting you dont mention the konner letter

since all youre doing is parroting it


"You say that in your book you reiterated your “strong condemnation” of acts of terrorism. On the contrary, your book states on page 213, "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." Any intelligent reader will recognize that this sentence condones the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally complies with your prescription for peace. This sentence was quoted in full in the interview with me by Ernie Suggs that accompanied my editorial, but you did not address it in your letter to me."

i found the letter at a website youre familiar with furman, under US politics and israel.

interestingly enough the 14 who resigned from the carter center also seem to be parroting the same letter almost like there is an organized attack against carter by some unknown group or groups.

[furman]

31. Let's see who may be part of this unknown group or groups

Click here for answer

[Howardx]

32. im sorry

i should have tagged "unknown group or groups" with this
:sarcasm:

[Scurrilous]

34. Norah O'Donnell Sees Israel Lobby Behind Carter Row

<snip>

"Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC just now did a very aggressive job of interviewing Steve Berman, one of the Jews who resigned from the Carter Center advisory board in protest of Carter's book. O'Donnell asked whether he had been "lobbied" by Jewish groups to do so. Berman said he hadn't. She didn't seem to believe him, virtually repeating the question, this time adding "AIPAC", and then bridled at the fact that these so-called friends of Carter did all this without even talking to their former leader ahead of time. Didn't you owe the former President that? she asked."

http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2007/01/norah-odonnell-sees-israel-lobby-behind-carter-row.html

[Tarc]

11. Assume all you like, we all know what that makes you

I do not condone suicide bombing, and your brushing aside settlements as "a few trailers on a hill" is ignorant and disingenuous.

These are serious and legitimate complaints that the Palestinians have had for decades, and the knee-jerk, blind support that the US gives to Israel in these situations is a major part of the problem.

[Tom Joad]

9. When will Israel end its acts of terror?

Cutting off of electric power to Gaza? (this isn't just for tv's its for things like drinking water, sewage control, and other such essentials)

Bombing families on beach picnics?

A million cluster bombs all over Lebanon?

wholesale theft of Palestinian land?

The demolition of Palestinian homes?

Thousands detained without trial, including children and women. torture often used (and documented by Israeli human rights groups)

Israeli terror has been used against the Palestinian people for near 60 years, and it seems time to stop.

[Poll_Blind]

7. Oh, Dershowitz and/or his supporters will be in the audience and...

...will make a ruckuss. Just a hunch.

PB

[bemildred]

14. INTERVIEW-Dershowitz seeks to grill Carter on Israel book

BOSTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Jimmy Carter should face "very hard questions" over his controversial book on Israel, civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz said on Thursday, as the former U.S. president faced a revolt from some of his own supporters.

---

Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor who has successfully defended O.J. Simpson and other unpopular figures, said he would take Carter to task when the former president addresses a forum at Brandeis University near Boston on Jan. 23.

"I will have my hand up the minute he finishes. It will be polite. It will be dignified but it will be tough," Dershowitz told Reuters. "There are some very, very hard questions that have to be asked to him."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11171023.htm

[Poll_Blind]

33. Ha! Yep. n/t

PB

[Tom Joad]

15. Jewish Voice for Peace, has petition to support Carter's truthtelling.

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/jvfp/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=425

[newyorican]

16. It is pretty stupid..

..to construe Carters words into support for suicide attacks.

Just the latest in many, equally stupid, attempts to twist his words.