Carter stands firm on apartheid accusations against Israel

[bemildred]

Despite the storm it ignited, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter held fast on Thursday to his accusation that Israel oppresses the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza and seeks to colonize their land.

Speaking at The George Washington University to a polite but mostly critical student audience, Carter offered no second thoughts on his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid that prompted 14 members of the Carter Center's advisory board to resign and drew fire from Jewish groups and some fellow Democrats.

He said he was not accusing Israel of racism nor referring to its treatment of Arabs within the country. "I defined apartheid very carefully as the forced segregation by one people of another on their own land," he said.

Outside the university auditorium, some two dozen protesters gathered, a few carrying signs. "Carter is a Liar" read one held by a smiling demonstrator while the others chanted the refrain.

Haaretz

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

1. hell, israel backed south africa in the 80s

how soon we forget.

so it's not a stretch to think they'd practice it, too.

[Nevernose]

2. So did we. And, by default, YOU. (n/t)

n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. I cut my political teeth on the divestment issue at my university in the 80's!...

and support efforts to divest from Israel as well and for the same reason!

[Tom Joad]

24. By our activism, we sure as hell did not support apartheid in south africa, No we did not.

And we sure as hell ain't gonna support it against the Palestinians, either. We will not be silent, or complicit.

[LeftishBrit]

52. So did Britain and America (at least, the Maggie and Ronnie governments)!

[ORDagnabbit]

3. The zionist regime in israel is bad. btw how much $ do we give them?

[Shaktimaan]

10. Is Egypt better in your opinion?

Look how much we give them. How about Saddam Hussein?

My point is not to say that it's OK to fund despots just because we have in the past. My point is to illustrate that we have a mutually beneficial relationship with many nations, and many are far, far worse than Israel.

We also happen to give more money than anyone else to the Palestinians. More than every Arab nation put together. Should we end that as well because Hamas is "bad?"

[Malikshah]

15. This lil red herring might have worked had the numbers actually been part of reality

Instead of tired and incorrect.

It's difficult to make the argument work when one contradicts oneself in the same post.

Egypt is referred to as a recipient of aid-- actually-- post Camp David, Egypt suddenly became No 2 behind Israel for a while.

Later on-- Palestinians receive "More than every Arab nation put together"

Hmm. Something doesn't jibe here. Oh-- it's obfuscation backed by faulty evidence.

My bad.

*baaaaaaa* Wrong answer.
Please try again. :)

BTW-- Here's a quick cut and paste--

It is not the complete info-- but it is at least a start...

"Here are the top 16 recipients of U.S. foreign aid for 2005:

1. Israel 2.58 Billion
2. Egypt 1.84 Billion
3. Afganistan 0.98 Billion
4. Pakistan 0.70 Billion
5. Colombia 0.57 Billion
6. Sudan 0.50 Billion
7. Jordan 0.48 Billion
8. Uganda 0.25 Billion
9. Kenya 0.24 Billion
10. Ethiopia 0.19 Billion
11. South Africa 0.19 Billion
12. Peru 0.19 Billion
13. Indonesia 0.18 Billion
14. Bolivia 0.18 Billion
15. Nigeria 0.18 Billion
16. Zambia 0.18 Billion

source:
CRS Report for Congress: Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S.
Programs and Policy Updated January 19, 2005, page 14
http://shelby.senate.gov/legislation/ForeignAid.pdf"

Where are those pesky Palestinians in that list?? Is there something I'm missing? Oh, yeah-- common sense reality and empirical evidence-- They're not there!

[Lurking Dem]

16. What he SAID was

that the U.S. gives more aid to Palestine than the combined total of aid dollars provided by the Arab states.

[Malikshah]

17. My bad-- it's that pesky grammar thing--appears unclear to me. UPDATE w/ DATA

I apologize for that.

As for data:

I still apologize, but with new data...it appears that the OP I responded to was still incorrect.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/21/africa/ME-GEN-Palestinians-Foreign-Aid.php

Foreign aid to Palestinians more than doubled in 2006 despite boycott: finance minister
The Associated Press
Published: February 21, 2007

RAMALLAH, West Bank: Foreign aid to the Palestinians has more than doubled in 2006, despite an international boycott of the Hamas-led government, the Palestinian finance minister said Wednesday.

Much of the aid bypassed the government and was instead funneled to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate who was elected separately.

In all, the Palestinians received $721.7 million (€549 million) in aid in 2006, compared to$348.5 million (€265 million) in 2005, said Palestinian Finance Minister Samir Abu Eisha. Arab countries and private donations from the Arab world made up more than 60 percent of the aid in 2006, he said.

Hamas won parliament elections in January 2006 and took control of the government two months later. The international aid boycott took effect once the Hamas government was installed.

[Kiouni]

4. Did these protesters even read his book?

what are they mad about? He gives his account of what happens, and to be quite frank, this account is straight from the horses mouth. He was there! What parts of the book do they disagree with? I just don't get what there mad about, or is that the point to be blindly angry.

[wellst0nev0ter]

9. Yeah, They Did

They seem to be very exercised about how Carter says that land should be exchanged to the Palestinians for their guarantees of nonviolence against Israel.

HOW DARE HE!!!

He should know damn well that before ANYTHING goes forward, Palestinians must drop their weapons and bombs and rockets and submit fully to Israeli rule. Anything and anyone who advocates for anything less than full Palestinian captitulation and the removal of any bargaining chip the Palestinians have wants Israel wiped off the map. Period, end of story.

[Shaktimaan]

11. Here's the deal.

Some people would have you believe that all of this criticism directed at Carter is based on his Pro-Palestinian stance and his critique of Israel's policies. (our own wellst0nev0ter for example.) Accusing Israel's defenders of copiously playing the "anti-semitism card" to quell debate is often itself used as a tool to stifle legitimate discussion of anti-Israel arguments. I've certainly seen far more accusations against (frequently nameless) people crying out baseless charges of "anti-semitism" than I have seen people actually accuse Israel's critics of being motivated by anti-Jewish sentiments.

In Carter's case, people certainly have labeled him an anti-semite because of this debaucle, yet I seriously doubt that it's because anyone is trying to stifle debate or smear Carter out of vengance for betraying Israel. I think it comes from an honest feeling that Carter's version of the conflict blatantly reinforces traditional anti-semitic stereotypes and is biased to such a degree that honorable motives like being pro-palestinian, pro-peace, etc. fall flat as explanations. And I certainly see how people got that impression. I found his book to be biased to the point of dishonesty and full of minor (yet relevant) factual errors. For the record, I don't personally think that Carter is anti-semitic (at least not conciously) yet it is pretty plain to see that he is extraordinarily critical of Israel while remaining comparatively unmoved by the truly hideous histories (and equally appalling current policies) of many of Israel's neighboring states. It is that quality, as well as his tendency to support his arguments by way of a revised history lesson that only includes events which support his view.

It's that last thing that I most had a problem with myself. I always had a tremendous amount of respect for Carter, both for his achievements and for his idealistic drive to change things for the better. So I bought the book expecting that the criticism I had heard was overblown or purely reactionary. I really wasn't prepared for the book I ended up reading. To make an analogy, it seemed similar to reading a historical analysis of WWII that completely left out the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Nazi invasion of Europe, the V1 attacks on London and the Holocaust in order to focus exclusively on the negative effects of the versailles treaty, the firebombing of Dresden and Hiroshima. If all you knew about WWII was gleaned from that history text you could easily see WWII as the result of American/British aggression against a disempowered, oppressed coalition of peaceful states. (Note to some DU'ers. I am NOT drawing a comparison between the Nazis and the Palestinians. I am just demonstrating the extent by which history can be warped by an overtly selective author. In this way I feel that Carter may have refrained from actually lying in his book but his interpretation of history couldn't really be called honest either.

I don't dislike books that offer opposing views than mine. But there's a difference between someone who is already fluent in world history picking up a Howard Zinn book and someone who never learned about the situation in the Middle East choosing Carter's book under the assumption that they will be getting a fair appraisal of the history. Which is exactly who this book is written for, a neophyte. With that understanding I think Carter made a calculated decision to leave out critical historical events, not to simplify the reader's understanding, but to muddle it. All conflicts have a series of cause-and-effect escalations, one can't hope to get a clear picture of the motives or issues that exist today if these basic facts are distorted or just completely left out.

My respect for Carter didn't survive my reading of his new book, needless to say.

[breakaleg]

12. Can you tell me where Carter is extraordinarily critical of Israel in his book?

And why would his not delving into "the truly hideous histories" of many of Israel's neighbors in a book that wasn't about them? The charge is often made in this forum that whatever Israel has done, there are other states that do worse. So? What does that have to do with the Israel / Palestinian conflict? Perhaps those "other states" are discussed in other forums. The fact that every ill is not given equal play in this forum means squat. All it does it try to deflect from the issue at hand. And it comes across as desperate - as in, lacking any real rebuttal of the issue at hand.

[Shaktimaan]

23. It is relevant, especially in terms of carter's book.

The I/P conflict is tied together with the histories of all of the surrounding nations. So much so that Carter spends a decent amount of time talking with the leaders of them. Since those countries are at least as responsible for the present situation the Palestinians face as Israel is, any book that wants to discuss WHY the Palestinian plight happened, and continues to happen, needs to talk about the role that these nations played. To say that this is a book that is just about the role Israel plays in the conflict, (though it will talk about these other nations in a way that makes them appear relatively blameless,) is to predjudice Israel.

Much of the space that talks about other nations involved is spent quoting leaders such as Assad, who will spout off some untrue statements about the conflict which then remain uncorrected by Carter. Since Carter has chosen to focus on these statements and thought them worthy enough to include, anyone reading the book that didn't have prior knowlege of the conflict would assume they are accurate. They would think that Arafat was honest when he said that the Palestinians always desired a peaceful shared state and the Jews threw them out solely because they didn't want to share any of the land.

If the issue at hand is the well being of the Palestinians, then it is not a deflection to talk about how Lebanon oppresses them, or how Jordan slaughtered them, is it? My main point was that Carter's book was predjudiced against Israel, extremely so, and did not give an honest history of the conflict. To make the comparison with a predjudiced WWII history again, what Carter did is like talking about the relationship America had with Germany, while leaving out everything about Italy or England or Japan, as though they were not relevant. Carter thought that it was relevant to discuss America's influence on the conflict. So he DID talk about other countries, based on a formula of whether they helped or hindered his arguments, NOT on how historically relevant they were.

If you were going to only write one thing about Saudi Arabia in your book on the middle east, why would you choose to make it a quote from the Sauds trumpeting their concern and practice of supporting human rights in Saudi Arabia? Because you were trying to be as UNBIASED as possible? I didn't think so.

Back to DU... If we are talking about a law, any law at all, that is supposed to apply to everyone evenly, and then proceed to only really enforce it against one nation, that is discrimination. If Israel's record on human rights puts them towards the "More Ethical" side of the chart as compared with everyone else, yet they are disproportionately criticised for HR abuses, often by nations who have far far worse records themselves, then it means that the system is broken. And I think that IS something relevant to the conflict if we are going to include the opinions of such groups as the UN in our discussion. It means that Israel is ONLY criticized for political reasons. That there is NO RELATIONSHIP between actual HR issues and being censured by the UN.

[breakaleg]

26. Well...

I came away with the feeling that Carter focused more on the peace process than a rundown of who did what to whom. The fact is that both sides disagree on the beginnings of this conflict. We can argue forever over who started it, who's most at fault. But there comes a time when we have to put that aside if it means that it is preventing a peace agreement.

Are you trying to imply that a book about this conflict must include certain criteria in order to be valid? This is a memoir. He's telling a story from his perspective. And he seems to do a pretty good job of telling the views of both sides of this conflict for each issue raised. In my opinion, Israel does come up short in some areas. If that's how it is, then so be it. He's telling about things he saw, people he spoke to, answers to questions he asked. How can you argue with that?

So, you still haven't answered my question. You've talked about what isn't in the book. Let's talk about what is there.

[Shaktimaan]

28. OK, let's talk about the book.

The fact is that both sides disagree on the beginnings of this conflict.
Actually, there isn't much dispute among historians as to what happened. The motives, justification and relevancy may be debated, but not the basic facts of what happened when. Have you heard the debate between Shlomo Ben-Ami and Norman Finkelstein? It's good, I'll link it if you haven't heard it. What's interesting is that they agree on most things, they differ mainly in what they see as Israel's ultimate responsibility to Palestine among other minor points.

But there comes a time when we have to put that aside if it means that it is preventing a peace agreement.
Well, easier said than done. I mean, I've heard you argue strongly in terms of what Israel must do to compensate the refugees of '48. Much of the problems with making peace have to do with trying to right past wrongs, some of which are unrightable. I don't think Israel is holding a grudge in this department. But I do think they see a precedent in Palestine's past actions that make them leery of any peace negotiations that leave any Israeli responsibilities locked in and leave Palestinian responsibilites up to their discretion. I do think many Palestinians are holding a grudge; there seems to be an all-or-nothing philosophy among their militant factions that are unwilling to make any concessions for peace unless their multitude of demands are met in full.

Are you trying to imply that a book about this conflict must include certain criteria in order to be valid?
Yes. When you leave out certain historical events, especially ones that greatly influenced the development and direction of the conflict, the reader can easily misjudge the causes and effects that define so much about the conflict today, including what obstacles we face in seeking peace.

This is a memoir.
No, it isn't. It is a history text designed to teach the basics of the conflict to people who don't know anything about it. Carter includes timelines and maps of events he was not part of shaping. He gives an outline of the Camp David talks in 2000 that Clinton, Schlomo Ben-Ami and Dennis Ross have refuted. Dennis Ross helped draft the Israel/Jordan peace treaty, he is not someone who shirks at the slightest critique of Israel.

To my mind, Mr. Carter’s presentation badly misrepresents the Middle East proposals advanced by President Bill Clinton in 2000, and in so doing undermines, in a small but important way, efforts to bring peace to the region.

It is certainly legitimate to debate whether President Clinton’s proposal could have settled the conflict. It is not legitimate, however, to rewrite history and misrepresent what the Clinton ideas were.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/opinion/09ross.html?ex=1325998800&en=f70db60fc63d6216&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

How can you argue with that?
Carter, more than most people, has a responsibility to be honest when relaying the facts of the conflict. There can be no excuse for any of his glaring ommissions and factual "mistakes" however small they might have been. The people who are criticising him are not just the usual hard-right suspects. It's people like Bill Clinton and Kenneth Stein calling him out. Kenneth Stein was the very first director of the Carter Center and accompanied Carter on the trips Carter talks about in his book. This is an exerpt, but you should read the full article he wrote after resigning from the Carter Center.

But Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,<1> Carter's twenty-first book and his second to focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict, is deficient. He does what no non-fiction author should ever do: He allows ideology or opinion to get in the way of facts. While Carter says that he wrote the book to educate and provoke debate, the narrative aims its attack toward Israel, Israeli politicians, and Israel's supporters. It contains egregious errors of both commission and omission. To suit his desired ends, he manipulates information, redefines facts, and exaggerates conclusions. Falsehoods, when repeated and backed by the prestige of Carter's credentials, can comprise an erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and policymaking. Rather than bring peace, they can further fuel hostilities, encourage retrenchment, and hamper peacemaking.

http://www.meforum.org/article/1633/

So, you still haven't answered my question. You've talked about what isn't in the book. Let's talk about what is there.
I think the title is an unfair and innaccurate criticism that required a lot of explaining on Carter's part to justify, the link he draws between apartheid and Israel is abstract at best, something many people will not fully grasp.

I think it's amazing how he always managed to get facts wrong in such a way that they looked worse for Israel. For instance, he cited Israel as attacking Jordan in '67. He cited the security fence's route as planned to encircle the WB completely, cutting the Jordan river off from Palestine. He used outdated information when it helped his argument and recent data when it did not. He framed his arguments in terms of biblical stories, drawing a parallel between modern Palestinians and Jesus' disciples in that they were both oppressed in similar ways by the Israelis. He places the burden of failure during the 2000 peace talks on Israel, not Arafat.

The entire book was slanted against Israel.

In the book, Carter often uses selective remarks by others to advocate his preferences. He uses the literary device "many believe" or "many say" to avoid tying a statement to himself. While implying that the Israeli government practices apartheid vis-à-vis the Palestinians, Carter refrains from calling Israelis racist but highlights and leaves unanswered the late Syrian president Hafez al-Assad's opinion:

Assad asserted that the Jews of the world constitute one people, regardless of obvious differences in their identities, languages, customs, and citizenship, but deny that the Palestinians comprise a coherent people even though they have one national identity, one language, one culture, and one history. Many Arabs consider these distinctions to be a form of racism by which Israelis regard Palestinian Arabs as inferiors who are not worthy of basic human rights, often branding them as terrorists if they resist Israel's encroachments. (kenneth stein article linked above)

[breakaleg]

35. Thanks for the link to the Stein article.

It was an interesting read. I'd say the most compelling part was the different recollections about Assad. Other than that, it wasn't enough to knock down the book.

[TomClash]

38. Now read Khalidi to get a little different perspective

Not surprisingly, there is much that is biased in the sundry attacks on Carter's book. Rashid Khalidi has spent the better part of his career identifying the Palestinian national and cultural existence, downplayed by others, who extol the jewish cultural persona in Palestine as if jewish immigration never existed.

[breakaleg]

39. i'll have to add his books to my list. It's a long one and I'm working my way down...

[Douglas Carpenter]

51. may I ask which Khalidi book are you reading?

I have read:

The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood by Rashid Khalidi - Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Cage-Palestinian-Struggle-Statehood/dp/0807003085/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176108006&sr=1-1

and have started but have not finished yet: Palestinian Identity by Rashid Khalidi - Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Palestinian-Identity-Rashid-Khalidi/dp/0231105150/ref=sr_1_4/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176108514&sr=1-4

He writes with great erudition and detail which can be a little dry to read - but well worth the time

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. I'm sorry, but I cannot for the life of me see how the book is particularly "pro-Palestinian"

in bias.

President Carter very much repeats the Israeli narrative regarding the origins and history of the Israeli state. No where does he challenge the legitimacy of the Zionist claim on Palestine or its wisdom or the wisdom or morality of the Balfour Declaration or the morality or wisdom of the United Nations Partition. Pro-Palestinian writing would certainly raise those questions. In fact his narrative seems to assume without question that the Palestinians had no right to reject the partition plan and does not even try to explain or question why. In fact President Carter states that the immediate recognition of the Israeli state by President Truman's administration was one of the greatest acts of the Truman presidency. The book doesn't even mention the issue of internal refugees and the military occupation imposed on the Palestinian Israeli community from 1948 to 1966 or the massive destruction of hundreds of Palestinian villages within the Israeli state. President Carter even goes so far as to assert that Palestinians living within Israel with Israeli citizenship have equal rights. No Palestinian or pro-Palestinian writer would let these issues go unmentioned.

He makes countless points that very few Palestinians and certainly none that I ever met would agree.

Most Palestinians considered the Camp David Accord between President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin to have been a very dark moment in their history. Egypt was removed as a deterrence against Israeli actions. Without the Begin/Sadat accord it is highly unlikely that the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon would have ever accord. This invasion which was made possible by the Begin/Sadat agreement was one of the most destructive events in post 1948 Palestinian history.

Most Palestinian, both common people and academics, consider the Oslo Accord of 1993 to have been a colossal blunder that only drove them farther and farther from genuine statehood, freedom and independence; a step backward, not a step forward. No where does President Carter even question any of the fundamentals of the Oslo Accord. A Palestinian or pro-Palestinian writer certainly would have.

President Carter talks of the Geneva Accord in only the most glowing and uncritical terms. Real live Palestinians have very serious questions about the Geneva Accord. President Carter does not even attempt to raise these concerns. A Palestinian or pro-Palestinian writer certainly would have.

I cannot help but think that what really bothers most supporters of Israel is that President Carter did draw attention to the cruel, brutal and inhuman conditions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel's expansionist and illegal settlement policies. I have not seen many critics of President Carter's book talk about that aspect of President Carter's book.

Mark Twain once said, "It's not the parts of the Bible that I don't understand that bother me. It's the parts of the Bible that I do understand."

I think that is the case with President Carter's book as well.

.

[Shaktimaan]

29. so...

No where does he challenge the legitimacy of the Zionist claim on Palestine or its wisdom or the wisdom or morality of the Balfour Declaration or the morality or wisdom of the United Nations Partition. Pro-Palestinian writing would certainly raise those questions.

unless someone comes right out and denies the idea that Jewish people should have the right of self-determination then he could not be considered pro-palestinian?
Interesting requirements you have.

I cannot help but think that what really bothers most supporters of Israel is that President Carter did draw attention to the cruel, brutal and inhuman conditions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel's expansionist and illegal settlement policies.

I'm sure that's what Bill Clinton, Schlomo Ben-Ami, Dennis Ross, Ken Stein, Ethan Bronner, The Economist, Martin Peretz (editor in chief of the new republic), the Central Conference of American Rabbis (who bailed on a planned visit to the Carter Center after the book dropped)and Irshad Manji (Muslim Australian journalist) were really mad about, right? And it is also what I am ultimately mad about too, correct? And we are all, every one of us, lying to hide our true, right-wing, Likudnik beliefs, our unyielding support for settlements, is that it?

:sarcasm:

That makes sense. Why else would Ken Stein, the first director of the Carter Center resign? Actually, he wrote an article about it. It seems that he either has some legitimate grievances here, or your theory about his hidden Likudnik agenda is driving him harder than I could have imagined to critique Carter over contrived nonsense, like altering the wording on certain UN resolutions and international agreements and stuff like that.

Among the most troubling aspects of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is Carter's apparent willingness to condone the killing of Israelis. He is deliberate with words. When he writes, "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,"<40> he leaves the impression that it is legitimate to engage in terrorism and suicide bombing against Israelis until Jerusalem accepts his interpretation of international law. In doing so, he ignores the fact that the performance-based formula for advancing Israeli-Palestinian talks, the so-called "Road Map" endorsed by the Quartet in 2003, required immediate cessation of terrorism.

To support Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid's central theme that Israel is intransigent, Carter recasts Hamas as a moderate partner ready to negotiate with Israel. He launders its reputation both with careful word choice and omission. He uses the past tense, for example, to describe Hamas as an "Islamic militant group that opposed recognition of Israel perpetrated acts of violence." Carter adds that he "urged them …to forgo violence."<41> He omits mention that Hamas denies the right of a Jewish state to exist in the Middle East and the group's belief that historical Palestine belongs in its entirety to Muslims. Carter is incorrect when he writes that Hamas has not been responsible for any terrorist acts since August 2004.<42> Hamas on many subsequent occasions claimed responsibility for firing Qassam rockets into Israel and also claimed responsibility for the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit in June 2006.<43>

Carter also claims that Hamas supports a 2002 Arab summit resolution which advocates a two-state solution, albeit one dependent on the right of return of Palestinian refugees. But Hamas rejects the two-state solution. Carter states that Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, "supports peace talks between Israel and Abbas … accepts the Road Map in its entirety." He does not. Carter adds that Hamas would modify its rejection of Israel if there were a negotiated agreement that the Palestinian people can approve, "an important facet of the Camp David Accords,"<44> but the Camp David accords never specified universal Palestinian ratification.

http://www.meforum.org/article/1633/

Look, you can disagree with my assessment, but please don't accuse me (or any of these reasonable people) of having ulterior motives in critiquing Carter's book. As I said before, I honestly thought that a reading of the book would show the criticism to be exaggerated, based on my respect for Carter and understanding of his work. I can handle criticism of Israel, especially from someone who actually brokered a peace treaty there. Thus, I was outraged and disappointed to read what I did. But not as disappointed as many of these other people, I'm sure.

Another good debate over the book is between Norman Finkelstein and Gil Troy. If you haven't seen it you may want to check it out.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=803

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. I'm simply saying that the book cannot be characterized as particularly "pro-Palestinian"

that is ridiculous. A balanced understanding of the conflict would have examined at least the same objections to the Zionist enterprise in Palestine and whether or not it constituted self-determination for the Jewish people; objections that were raised by Jewish people, both secular and religious, well into the 1930's. The established pre-Zionist Jewish community of Palestine as I am sure you know did not welcome this project and its agenda.

A pro-Palestinian writer would have certainly explored Palestinian objections to the Zionist enterprise and the establishment of the Israeli state.

A pro-Palestinian writer would have explored Palestinian objections to a whole host of matters that President Carter didn't even touch and questioned many of the assumptions President Carter made.

Although I do rejoice that at least some of the most important issues are raised; trust me, I have just as many objections to the book as you have.

thanks for the link: I will check it out

[Shaktimaan]

32. Well, I disagree.

But that's neither here nor there. I think that in terms of presenting an unbiased summary of the history of the conflict, Carter strongly favors a revised history that supports the Palestinian cause over Israel's. That's what I meant by pro-Palestinian. That Carter's factual history and his opinions relating to the situation are far far more sympathetic to Palestine (and any related Arab state) over Israel. If you don't feel that's pro-palestinian, that's fine. But I don't think Carter was honest or responsible in his portrayal of the conflict.

I mostly get angry over the insinuation that any criticism of Carter must be based in a knee-jerk reaction to any kind of criticism of Israel, rather than considering that valid points against Carter's book may exist. This reaction where any charge of anti-semitism immediately becomes proof that a "smear-job" is going on is just as much a tool used to stymie debate as the fallacious charges of anti-semitism that they decry are. I am not a person who cries wolf and have never accused Carter of anti-semitism. But I found that as soon as I challenge any of the many problems with his book, people assume that my motives are not what I say,. That, since there can't be any truth to these charges against Carter, I must actually be mad that Carter critiqued settlements. Yet I am not in favor of settlements myself.

I am in favor of truth though, and when this history is distorted, from either side, I think it does a huge disservice to the peace movement and the histories of both Israelis and Palestinians. And it's sad. Because there's no reason for it. The ends do not justify the means.

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. and I'm afraid I disagree and cannot see how he favored the Palestinians

over Israel. President Carter supports solutions that would leave a future Palestinian state rendered powerless on a tiny percentage of their homeland next door to a regional super power with Israel rewarded for years of defying international law and all the major settlement block around Jerusalem and even some deep inside the West Bank. President Carter's preferred agreement leaves more than half the illegal settlers on the settlements annexed to Israel. This agreement actually steps back wards from the Taba talks and removes language that acknowledged Israel's role that contributed to creating the refugee problem. It removes the ability for Palestinian citizens to make claims for damages suffered during 40 years of occupation. This agreement enthusiastically backed by President Carter and praised in his book is tilted toward Israel against Palestinian interest in almost every respect.

Having said all of that, if President Carter's preferred agreement was to actually come about and it meant an end to the fighting and the beginning of at least some steps forward over the current situation, I would tend to support it; if it only brings peace and a new beginning.

Regarding past military conflicts with Arab countries, President Carter pretty much uncritically accepted the Israeli narrative. There are excellent Israeli histories written by highly respected Israeli historians based almost exclusively on Israeli government archives, such as Avi Shlaim's; The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, which questions the standard Israeli narrative. None of this insight from a critical Israeli (not even pro-Palestinian) perspective even made its way in to President Carter's book. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Wall-Israel-Arab-World/dp/0393321126/ref=ed_oe_p/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&qid=1174882971&sr=1-1

I suppose we both agree that the book is unbalanced. Although I think President Carter does deserve at least a B for trying to communicate at least some slight degree of understanding and empathy to a country were Palestinians just don't count for very much.

.

[Shaktimaan]

36. He did?

Regarding past military conflicts with Arab countries, President Carter pretty much uncritically accepted the Israeli narrative.

In Carter's version Israel attacked Jordan during the 6 day war. In the timeline he makes a point of listing Jewish militant actions after the White Paper yet doesn't even touch on The Great Arab Uprising that preceded (and led to) it. For the War of '48 he makes no note of who instigated it or why, just that fighting started.

He wasn't critical of the Israeli narrative, he ignored it. But is there a Palestinian narrative that does not have the Uprising in it? Or the Mufti of Jerusalem and the strife he had with the Husseins which led to some of these power struggles?

There is a big difference between an Israeli historian challenging the status quo and Carter's book for neophytes neglecting critical aspects of the accepted history. I mean, his timeline had nothing of importance happening between 1939 and 1941. What kind of timeline about the I/P conflict leaves out the holocaust? This is not supposed to be revisionist history. One needs to know the basic story before questioning aspects of it. And the basic facts of the conflict are not in serious dispute. As I said earlier, I would not recommend Howard Zinn as a first text on American History.

But the book you linked to sounds interesting. I'll check it out. What did you think of the Wasserstein book by the way?

What agreement was it that Carter is backing? It isn't the roadmap, is it?

As far as Israel being rewarded goes, I tend to see it as the Palestinians being rewarded. The vast majority of Palestine is already in Arab hands. And if not for years of terrorism, headed by Arafat (is he technically a Palestinian?) and a UN/Arab League committed to keeping the refugee issue relevant by refusing to relocate any of them, they would not be getting even part of the state designated by the UN partition act. (An act that was rejected by the Palestinians.)

The Arab states took a gamble and refused to set any borders when it would have been in their best interest to do so. Gambling works both ways though. You don't get reimbursed when you foolishly bet the farm and lose it. As far as Palestine being a weak state next to a regional superpower, I'm not sure why that is such a big problem. Is anyone suggesting that India supplement Bangladesh for this same reason? If the PA wants a strong state, they can build one. Investors don't build in Israel because they feel sorry for them. It's because Israel has made it worthwhile. The PA gets plenty of aid. They should start developing with it instead of investing in the Suha Arafat S&L plan. See that's what's great about capitalism. It doesn't care about race or politics. It only cares about ROI. Return on Investment. The PA is getting a very poor ROI in every department right now. And it is not because of Israel.

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. actually I thought the Wasserstein book was well worth reading

and I really don't see how Dr. Wasserstein's book which I believe you recommended is anymore "pro-Palestinian" than Jimmy Carter's books.

If I might quote something from Dr. Wasserstein's book, Israelis and Palestinians: Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop?

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Israelis-Palestinians-They-Fight-Second/dp/0300105975/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174895894&sr=1-1

from page 105 (bottom) to page 106

"Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921-2. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there -- but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's "first partition" has become part of the concept of "Greater Israel" and the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionist movement. Long after the establishment of Israel, the Revisionists' political heirs, the Herut Party (core elements in what became Likud) led by Manahem Begin, still dreamed of a Jewish state the would include Transjordan. Their catch-phrase was "The Jordan has two banks: one is ours and the other too. Most Revisionist conveniently forgot that their ideological hero, Jabotinsky, had, as a member of the Zionist Executive, endorsed the arrangements in 1922 that explicitly prohibited settlement in Transjordan. More recently, advocates of Israeli annexation of the West Bank have asserted the proper home of Palestinian Arabs is in Transjordan: hence the slogan "Jordan is Palestine".

The creation of Transjordan, then has nothing to do with the partition, properly understood, save for the purposes of some propagandist."

_______________________

Quite frankly Israel simply does not grant resident visas and allow movement enough for a viable economy to develop. It is virtually impossible for a Palestinian (unless they have Israeli or western citizenship)to travel from Hebron to Bethlehem in one day. And this is a distance that should only take one hour.

________________________

In my post above was referring to President Carter's enthusiastic endorsement of the Geneva Accord --- link: http://www.geneva-accord.org/HomePage.aspx?FolderID=11&lang=en

______________________

Quite frankly I am coming from the stand point of how Arabs and Palestinians understand the conflict. And I mean the vast majority of Arabs and Palestinians who have long wanted a peace settlement with Israel. However, I would have to say that if one is familiar with the Arab/Palestinian understanding of the conflict and again I reiterate those who very much want a settlement, President Carter's views are pretty similar to that of a liberal/left Zionist (like Professor Wasserstein), but still well within the Zionist camp and certainly not in the Palestinian/Arab camp. And quite frankly, I wouldn't even know where to begin to explain the differences.

A few years ago at Oxford, Joseph A. Massad had a debate with Benny Morris. The debate was later titled; "No Common Ground". Which of course is a problem in the understanding of this conflict even among those who very much want peace. However, if you are interested and can stomach reading something from the other side of the conflict, there are some books I might recommend. Please understand that reading material from the Zionist side is far from painless for me....but if you have an interest:

This is written by an Israeli-Jewish professor at Haifa University, but I think one can fairly say that in his case his perspective is fairly close to a Palestinian perspective:

A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples
by Ilan Pappe

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/History-Modern-Palestine-Land-Peoples/dp/0521683157/ref=sr_1_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174896563&sr=1-1

The Question of Palestine
by Edward W. Said

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Question-Palestine-Edward-W-Said/dp/0679739882/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&qid=1174897017&sr=1-7

The End of the Peace Process: Oslo and After
by Edward W. Said

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/End-Peace-Process-Oslo-After/dp/0375409300/ref=sr_1_18/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174897231&sr=1-18

Palestine And the Palestinians: A Social and Political History
by Samih K. Farsoun and Naseer H. Aruri

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813343364/102-8701952-4352901

and for a truly mind boggling work by an orthodox rabbinical scholar and Professor of Jewish history at the University of Montreal:

A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism
by Yakov M. Rabkin

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1842776991/102-8701952-4352901

______________

I am looking at the conflict from the "other side". In those terms, I just cannot view President Carter's book as one-sided against Israel and in favor of the Palestinian/Arab point of view.

I apologize if I inadvertently caused any offense. No offense was intended. And I mean that sincerely.

.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Could you point out all these traditional antisemitic stereotypes?

In Carter's case, people certainly have labeled him an anti-semite because of this debaucle, yet I seriously doubt that it's because anyone is trying to stifle debate or smear Carter out of vengance for betraying Israel. I think it comes from an honest feeling that Carter's version of the conflict blatantly reinforces traditional anti-semitic stereotypes and is biased to such a degree that honorable motives like being pro-palestinian, pro-peace, etc. fall flat as explanations.

I'm really starting to wonder if you read the same book as I did because the book I read was, despite the wails to the contrary I've seen in this forum, reasonably even-handed. While he was critical of Israel, he was also critical of the Palestinians. He was pretty straightforward in his criticism of Arafat and there's a bit in the book where he recalls pushing Arafat to fulfill Oslo promises and found his answers equivocal....

I addressed a 'critique' of Carter that you did in another thread. Rather than raise the same points again, here's the link to what I posted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=168406&mesg_id=169753

[Englander]

18. ~~

[Englander]

19. Nothing yet?

[breakaleg]

20. It was pretty easy to criticize Carter and his book when it first came out. But

now that a few more of us has actually read it, it's pretty quiet around here.

[Shaktimaan]

31. well, here is one.

any controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. . . . This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Peace_Not_Apartheid#Public_and_other_programs_pertaining_to_the_book

So there is a powerful force hidden behind the scenes that prevents any debate on Palestine? The Power behind the Throne, eh? How did his book get so much publicity then?

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Misreading Carter's words in an article about the book isn't what I was looking for...

When I asked you for examples of the traditional antisemitism that you claimed were in the book, I was hoping you'd come up with something he'd actually written, not something that isn't antisemitic which you then translated into being something he hadn't said at all....

He didn't say anything about a powerful hidden force behind the scenes that prevents any debate on Palestine. He pointed out, quite correctly, that in the US, a combination of the lobbying efforts of AIPAC and the absence of any strong voices to give the Palestinian narrative is what has led to the lack of the same debate in the US that is common in other countries....

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[breakaleg]

64. You have a problem with people who care about Palestinians?

Since you didn't read the book, and you accuse him of antisemitism, then you are going to have to back that up with the exact statements he made that were antisemitic. You can't make an accusation like that and NOT back it up.

[euromind]

63. Read Christian Antisemitism

Read, for example, William Nichols's
Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate.

[Tom Joad]

14. The other explanation is that those who are making these personal attacks against Carter

are pro-occupation, anti-human right nutcases. Certainly describes Dershie.

[Shaktimaan]

33. Dershowitz is anti-human?

Well, I guess if you consider Clinton anti-human, then why not Dershowitz, one of the most famous civil rights lawyers in America.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Dershy is anti human-rights. He advocates torture...

And it's very clear from the post you replied to that Tom was referring to Dershy's allergy to human-rights. Who gives a flying fuck if the Professor of Torture is one of the most famous civil rights lawyers in the US? That doesn't negate the repellent views he holds on torture...

[bemildred]

42. But only when you really, really, really need too, and you know it is

going to make the world so much better if you do.
:sarcasm:

It is kind of odd to realize that Dersh and Alberto Gonzales are on the same side when it comes to that issue.

[Shaktimaan]

44. Well, it just seems that dershowitz is being honest.

He advocates torture only under the "ticking clock" scenario. Which is exceedingly rare. But if it was a situation that was faced, every single person would advocate torture. He does not advocate it except under the most extreme of circumstances when it would be necessary to save lives.

That is not Gonzales's program.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Yeah, he's honest when he admits he advocates torture...

There's nothing exceedingly rare about that ticking clock scenario, which is why so many people are totally opposed to it. He's not exactly someone whose praises I'd be singing...

[Shaktimaan]

47. Then you must not

know much about his history. You should not disparage a man's entire history because you disagree with one of his opinions. You are assuming quite a bit about him. Dershowitz's influence in his lifetime will leave a far greater positive impression on human rights than you or I put together, his position on torture not withstanding.

You'll notice that despite my disagreement with Carter and loss of respect for him over his recent book, I didn't dis any of his earlier achievements or suggest he's not a humanitarian. I didn't refer to him as president-anti-semite or anything. Nor did I with the UN rappaport I recently dissed. I think he's biased, but I didn't compare him to Arafat.

Can you give me a single example of when the ticking clock scenario has happened? As in the hidden bomb set to go off and nothing but torturing this man will get us the information we need. That's the example he used, when has something like that happened? And if it did, what would you suggest barring torture? And do you think any government would NOT just torture the guy? And be absolved of it later? Please.

Besides, you are acting like such a weird philosophical question is one of concrete humanitarianiam, cut and dry. It is not. I beleieve most people are against torture, except when you have no other choice and it will save lives. Those times are few and far enough between that people are able to reconcile their dichotomy.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. I know quite a bit about him. He's been discussed in this forum before...

And while you might think advocating torture is just a teeny little thing that shouldn't colour someone's reputation, I disagree very strongly. The guy is a fucking disgrace, and no accomplishments in other fields makes his disgusting stance on torture more palatable...

[Shaktimaan]

56. Uh huh.

Just like the former head of the Carter Center resigning over Carter's atrocious book is seen by yourself as "good riddance," right? Anyone, no matter what they've done in the past, all they have to do is disagree with you once and everything they've ever contributed to society is worthless.

You would probably write off MLK if he dissed Morrissey.
(Which he would were he alive today, obviously.)

[bemildred]

53. He's a lawyer. Hello?

A paid advocate for one side in disputes? If he is honest, I am Mother Theresa.

[Shaktimaan]

54. Read a little more about him before you dismiss him as merely a shill.

[bemildred]

57. You don't have the foggiest idea what I have read or not read.

Dershowitz is "biased", and "unfair", and he "cherry picks" the evidence to present a "slanted" and "unfair" view of the situation and ignores "important historical facts" that don't fit his "agenda".
:sarcasm:

But seriously, nobody in his right mind can think Dershowitz is anything but a biased polemicist when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians.

[Shaktimaan]

58. And that has what to do with this discussion?

nothing.

Why argue a point when you can just switch topics?

[bemildred]

59. I don't know, you brought it up. Why DID you switch topics? nt

[Shaktimaan]

60. Actually Tom brought it up.

I merely challenged him on his statement.
Because it was absurd.

This is a little sub-thread about whether Dershowitz is a humanitarian or a monster. You, however, are veering off course completely, abandoning any narrative thread whatsoever by criticizing him on having a biased opinion on the I/P conflict.

Let's see... is Dershowitz biased? Hmmm. Oh wait! He wrote a freakin' BOOK called "In Defense of Israel." Of COURSE he's BIASED! So WHAT? Does that mean he's "anti-human" as Tom asserts? No.

Can't we just stay on track once in a while? Please?

By the way, if Carter had written a book called, "From Palestine's perspective," or something, I would have less of an issue with his bias. (But not his factual errors.) Carter's bias is an issue because he is supposedly acting as a non-partisan observer, and gives tools like timelines that should be unbiased regardless of his own views. It's also a bigger deal because he was PRESIDENT. Dershowitz was O.J.'s lawyer. Difference there.

[bemildred]

61. No, you brought up the idea that I need to read more about Alan.

But you don't know anything about how much I've read about Alan.

[Jim Sagle]

43. I give a fuck, THAT'S who gives a fuck. Because that's the kinda guy I am.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I think we all know what sort of guy you are...

Which is why it doesn't surprise me to find you firmly in the corner of someone who advocates torture...

[Jim Sagle]

50. He's actually quite wrong about that, as I think we all agree.

But his overall record as a Democrat and a democrat is stellar.

[Bryan Sacks]

21. adressing the destruction of a soceity vs. addressing anti-semitism

Shaaktiman writes:

In Carter's case, people certainly have labeled him an anti-semite because of this debaucle, yet I seriously doubt that it's because anyone is trying to stifle debate or smear Carter out of vengance for betraying Israel. I think it comes from an honest feeling that Carter's version of the conflict blatantly reinforces traditional anti-semitic stereotypes and is biased to such a degree that honorable motives like being pro-palestinian, pro-peace, etc. fall flat as explanations.

Others have contested the accuracy of this portrayal, but let's assume for the moment that it's accurate. Carter's version of the conflict blatantly reinforces anti-semitic stereotypes.

Does that change the fact that the conflict itself, however you characterize it, has destroyed large parts of Palestinian society? Shaaktiman, don't you see that even if you were correct, your concerns for blatant anti-semitism are inconsequential next to the horrors faced by an illegally brutalized people every day? That a Palestinian may say he hates you or hates me (I'm a Jew AND an American) simply doesn't matter. Their hatred is nothing next to my involuntary, yet inescapably real, support of the destruction of their society. I am guilty of that, as are all Americans and all Israelis.

Anti-semitism is not a justification for a criminal occupation or the resulting socio-cide. If you use it as a justification, you will always be able to use it, because somewhere someon will always be saying "kill the Jews." There are times when antisemitism matters - like when a powerful country's leader makes seriously anti-semitic statements while there are a significant number of Jews living under his control. But that is not the case in Iran, nor in the West Bank or, to my knowledge, anywhere in the world right now.

Can you see the point?

Can't you see this?

[Shaktimaan]

25. Thank you for posting this.

I think that your response, or a variation of it, is one of the classic points that seem to get raised often in any conversation about the I/P conflict that is tertiary to the main event. And to be brutally honest, I think it's a cheap way to sidestep the actual conversation. Where as I thought I was debating whether or not the responses to Carter's book were deserved, suddenly I seem to be talking about the I/P conflict itself, justifying the oppression of Palestinians by way of Carter's anti-semitic opinion.

I think I saw Rush use this technique a few times. If not Rush then definitely Steven Colbert.

So, to answer your question, yes, I agree that my concerns of anti-semitism pale in comparison to the issues facing Palestinians. However, I also think that the plight of the Palestinians is not quite as horrible as the problems faced by Tibetans, who may actually lose their culture very soon. And Tibet's problems also seem superficial when compared to those who are being slaughtered in Darfur. (Do you see where I am going with this?) You make your biggest mistake in assuming that I am using Carter's debatable anti-semitism to justify illegal oppression of Palestinians. Which I sure as hell am not. Nothing even close to that.

I also have an issue with putting aside the topic of this thread, Carter's accuracy, and just assuming for now that he's anti-semitic and dishonest. Because that's what we are discussing. Not the Palestinians, not Iran, not even anti-semitism in general or it's effect on the conflict. We are discussing Carter's book, his possible motives for writing such a slanted portrayal, whether it even is slanted and whether the negative responses are justified or honest.

And it is important to the conflict. There is NOTHING to be gained by such a respected and trusted figure writing a book on this conflict that is anything other than factually honest and historically unbiased. His OPINION is his own and I don't care if he writes a book that reads like Mao as long as he presents the basic facts about the subject, the ones everyone agrees on and are critical towards gaining any kind of understanding of the conflict, honestly. But he cannot include something like a timeline of events and then cherry pick just the events that support his story. If people come away from reading his book with an incorrect understanding of the basic motives and events that shaped this conflict then he has done a huge disservice to the peace movement.

And as for Iran, 25,000 Jews living there is a significant number as far as I am concerned. However, it still has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. I'm seeing a problem here...

There is NOTHING to be gained by such a respected and trusted figure writing a book on this conflict that is anything other than factually honest and historically unbiased. His OPINION is his own and I don't care if he writes a book that reads like Mao as long as he presents the basic facts about the subject, the ones everyone agrees on and are critical towards gaining any kind of understanding of the conflict, honestly. But he cannot include something like a timeline of events and then cherry pick just the events that support his story. If people come away from reading his book with an incorrect understanding of the basic motives and events that shaped this conflict then he has done a huge disservice to the peace movement.

You've been very critical of his book, to the extent of making a claim that he reverts to traditional antisemitic stereotypes. Yet now that I've read the book and replied to a critique of yrs where you painted the book as being something it wasn't, I have yet to see you point out where he's been factually dishonest. What I'm seeing more than anything is a strong desire for him to have presented some version of events where Israel isn't criticised at all. In another post you criticised him for daring to have a good relationship with Arab leaders. I still fail to see what's wrong with a US president forging a good personal relationship with all parties to the conflict. Bill Clinton was a master at doing it, Jimmy Carter also did well in this regard, and I see this approach as being far more constructive than insisting on a president only being friendly with Israeli leaders and treating Arab leaders like the enemy. After all, the aim of both Clinton and Carter were to be effective mediators between the parties, and that can't be done if they'd taken one side over the other to the extent of not even having a personal relationship with some leaders...

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[euromind]

65. Discussion versus demagoguery

I didn't read previous posts, but I can see that Shaaktiman quote makes sense, Bryan's response - not really. But as someone who has a degree (among several others)in Jewish history with emphasis on antisemitism, I can recognize the familiar pattern in his response.

No knowledge of history, no interest in history.
If one doesn't know history (history of antisemitism and the Middle East in particular), how one can
have an intelligent discussion? No, one can't.
On the other hand, demagoguery is good (costs nothing - unlike "multiyear" commitment to education, for example - and allows one to feel sooooooooo goooood about oneself). And only this matters.

I don't know whether Bryan is or isn't a Jew, but I know he doesn't know (or pretends) that antisemitism has led to the destruction (often total) of Jewish societies over, and over, and over again.

[fooj]

5. I trust him.

Israel does oppress Palestine. Why is that so offensive to some? The US has started a pre-emptive war which is both immoral and illegal. Do I feel anger and shame? Yes. Is it true? Yes.

Carter seems to be a convenient target or maybe a diversion?

[xchrom]

6. that's interesting.

[Englander]

7. His book's still selling, as well.

Hardcover Nonfiction
1 THE AUDACITY OF HOPE, by Barack Obama. (Crown, $25.) The Illinois junior senator proposes that Americans move beyond their political divisions. First Chapter 1 19
2 SOMEBODY’S GOTTA SAY IT, by Neal Boortz (HC/HarperCollins, $25.95.) A radio talk-show host discusses government, poverty, prayer in the schools, race relations, gun control and other topics. 1
3 A LONG WAY GONE, by Ishmael Beah. (Sarah Crichton/Farrar, Straus & Giroux, $22.) A former child soldier from Sierra Leone describes his drug-crazed killing spree and his return to humanity. First Chapter 2 2
4 MARLEY & ME, by John Grogan. (Morrow, $29.95 and $21.95.) A newspaper columnist and his wife learn some life lessons from their neurotic dog. 5 71
5 THE INNOCENT MAN, by John Grisham. (Doubleday, $28.95.) Grisham’s first nonfiction book concerns a man sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit. 3 20
6 I FEEL BAD ABOUT MY NECK, by Nora Ephron. (Knopf, $19.95.) A witty look at aging from a novelist and screenwriter (‘‘When Harry Met Sally’’). First Chapter 6 30
7 INFIDEL, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. (Free Press, $26.) A memoir by the Somali-born advocate for Muslim immigrant women, once a member of the Dutch Parliament, who has been threatened with death. 7 3
8 POWER, FAITH, AND FANTASY, by Michael B. Oren. (Norton, $35.) A history of America’s relations with the Middle East starting in 1776. 11 6
9 BORN ON A BLUE DAY, by Daniel Tammet. (Free Press, $24.) A memoir by an autistic savant who can perform extraordinary mathematical calculations. 8 6
10 FREAKONOMICS, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. (Morrow, $27.95.) A maverick scholar and a journalist apply economic theory to just about everything. First Chapter 15 94
11 PALESTINE PEACE NOT APARTHEID, by Jimmy Carter. (Simon & Schuster, $27.) The former president calls for revitalizing the peace process.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/books/bestseller/0311besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Scurrilous]

66. Researcher Says Israel Responsible for at least 97.8 Percent of Serious Human Rights Abuses

Full title: "Researcher Says Israel Responsible for at least 97.8 Percent of Serious Human Rights Abuses in Conflict"

<snip>

"As Israel comes under increasing pressure over its policies against Palestinians, an independent Swedish researcher today releases an extensive analysis of the Middle Eastern conflict since the formation of the state of Israel in 1948. According to Dr. Anthony Löwstedt, the vast majority of grave violations of human rights falls under the responsibility of the Jewish state.

In the third edition of his study, 'Apartheid: Ancient, Past, and Present', Löwstedt concludes that no less than 97.8 percent of gross human rights violations so far committed in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are sole responsibilities of the Israeli Jews, and 2.2 percent, at the most, are Palestinian crimes.

Israel was accused of apartheid by John Dugard, the United Nations Human Rights Council's Special Envoy to the Occupied Palestinian Territories in February this year. In a report to the Council, Dugard recommended bringing the charge of apartheid, a crime against humanity under international law, against Israel to the International Court of Justice in the Hague. Previously, two Nobel Peace Prize laureates, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and the former South African Anglican Archbishop, Desmond Tutu, had also raised accusations of apartheid against Israel.

According to all four and many others, Israel is implementing the same system of oppression that Whites used against the indigenous black majority in South Africa until 1994. And just like Blacks committed a number of violent crimes against Whites and occasionally incited people to violence against South African Whites in the liberation struggle there, Palestinians have carried out similar crimes against Israeli Jews.

However, the overwhelming majority of violent crimes as well as cases of incitement to violence are responsibilities of the privileged ethnicities in both countries, according to Löwstedt. Moreover, he points out seven kinds of systematic, racist crimes which he says are the sole responsibilities of the Israeli Jews and the South African Whites and of similar ethnic elites in other apartheid societies. These crimes include ethnically discriminatory repopulation, citizenship, land, work, access, education, and language policies and practices."

http://www.just-international.org/article.cfm?newsid=20002120

[Shaktimaan]

67. Now THAT'S interesting.

reading it now.

[Shaktimaan]

68. Wow, that's some document.

You should see how he arrives at that number. It's insane. This is such a hatchet job it isn't even funny. Check out his bibliography, Miftah, If American's Knew, Mearsheimer & Walt, etc. It's a regular who's who of anti-Israel (and occasionally anti-semitic) resources mixed in with the valid regulars like Reuters. No CAMERA tho. Wonder why?