So, here's the story.
I spent a few hours going through the book, folding down pages with decent examples of bias, incorrect facts and one-sided history. Then I would look at the book over the following week and put off the effort of actually listing off everything and then disputing it. I realized that a lot of time had gone by yet I felt it was important to make a decent post on this topic so I figured out a compromise since I'm never going to feel like debating every instance I found in the book. (Especially since there was one every 2 or 3 pages.)
What I'll do is give my basic problems with Cater's approach and give a few examples of ones that I thought were either really awful or really conspicuous. I did a little research and I found three articles that listed many of the specific issues that I had with exerpts from the book. It made sense to link to those three rather than type out my own interpretation of them. Although they list a few things that I disagree with and left out a lot that I found very relevant the articles do a pretty good job of listing specific quotes that I had marked and challenging them.
Carter uses a technique that I found to be common in many partisan articles about any complex subject out there. Rather than tell outright lies he manages to give a distinctly different picture of the situation by omitting certain key facts which allows him to draw conclusions that don't represent the whole story. So while he never "lies" he never fully tells the truth either.
page 3: (a timeline of the conflict) "1936: Palestinian arabs demand a halt to jewish immigration and a ban on land salers to jews. British toops attempt to assert control but violence continues. The peel commission recommends partition of palestine between arabs and jews.
1939: Britain announces severe restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchases in Palestine. Violence erupts from Jewish militias."
OK, here Carter makes it seem as though there was a violent insurrection by Jewish militants. Left out is the Arab Uprising of 1936-39 in which over 5000 people died. All it says about that is "violence continues." Yet he makes a point of calling out Jewish reprisals against it. Equally absent are any of the violent episodes preceding it such as the Jaffa riots or the Hebron massacre, all examples of when Arabs preemptively attacks Jewish communities and which were the impetus for creating the jewish resistance groups in the first place.
Page 149: Here carter discusses Sharon going to the temple mount, mentioning that he got Barak's reluctant approval, visited with several hundred policemen and declared that the Islamic holy site would remain under permanent Israeli control while there. Then Carter attributed the Al Aqsa intifada to that visit and said that many Israelis accussed Sharon of purposely going there to inflame tensions and obstruct the peace process.
Some of this is plainly false, and some important information was left out. First off he only talks about the complex as being an Islamic holy site, failing to mention that it is also the home of the most holy relic in Judaism, the western wall which is the last piece of the last temple upon which the temple mount now stands. So the site is holy for Jews as well but Israel allows it to be administered by the Islamic Waqf and doesn't allow Jews to pray there, except for the wall outside, to keep the peace. Sharon also obtained the permission of the Waqf and even Arafat for his visit, which was not to make a public statement but to investigate charges of vandalism inside. He brought the security detail because the Waqf told him to make his own security arrangements. He did not enter the mosque, nor did he make a statement. His security men ignored the rock throwing and attempts at engaging them and left peacefully. Arafat's own buses had provided transportation for the protesters.
The Mitchell report, America's investigation into the affair, plainly said that Sharon's visit was not why the intifada started. It attributed the Intifada to the breakdown of peace talks at Camp David and listed evidence to support it.
Another thing Carter does is include extended quotes from Arab leaders who tell their side of the story, often complete with many errors. Then he leaves it alone, doesn't offer any contradicting text, nothing. The reader is left with the impression that...
page 62 Extended quote from arafat where he proclaims that the PLO never advocated the annialation of Israel, in 1969 wanted to establish a secular, democratic state where jews christians and muslims whould live in peace together but since the jews said that they only wanted to live with other jews the PLO had to resort to another route.
There's also examples of exaggeration.
Page 83: Transjordan is created out of some remote desert regions of the Palestine Mandate.
Remote desert regions? Transjordan was something like 80% of the mandate.
There's plenty more. I'll leave you with those links to some articles which go through some more stuff. Reactions appreciated.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/11/the_world_according_to_jimmy_c.htmlhttp://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=43958http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467747675&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(363 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
