1
   

The World According To Jimmy Carter

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 02:23 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

I won't dispute that Carter has a right to be heard. I think, though, it is fair game to question whether something disingenuous or incompetent 'deserves' to be heard. In the serious issue of Israel/Palestine and the other issues simmering in the Middle East, I think it extremely important that our national leaders get it right and that they are called out on it when they get it wrong.


I agree. But it hasn't been shown that Carter's book is either disingenuous or incompetent.

Quote:
Apart from the book, Carter's unwavering defense of Arafat who made zero efforts for peace between Israel and Palestine and Carter's consistent non-recognition of Israels efforts for peace between Israel and Palestine adds a huge amount of credibility to what Stein, Dershowitz, the Washington post all say about Carter's position on that.


Except that you don't know for a fact that Carter "unwavering[ly]" defends Arafat or consistently refuses to recognize Israel's efforts for peace because you didn't read the book. Unless you're saying you derived this opinion of him from other things you've read that he wrote, or from interviews with him. I'm all ears if that's the case.

Quote:
And if they all dispute Carter's version about that, it is a good bet that they got it right and he got it wrong about the rest too. (I don't think anybody has said Israel is perfect either and has made no errors of either commission or omission.)


They don't dispute Carter's version of things, they dispute the fact that he appears to be critical of Israel.

Quote:
I did ask you (FD) however, how you know Carter's book reads like a memoirs rather than as a history.


Didn't catch that question, but I know from having read the first chapter. I admitted not having finished the book, not never having read any of it. It's not a history book and it's scope is solely the occupied territories and what needs to be done to bring peace.

Oh wait, I committed a sin of omission. I have the audio book, so I should have said "I heard" the first chapter.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 02:24 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Sorry, I need something a little more specific then that before I'm going to trash a man.

Ok, good for you, we are all free to our own opinions & should have some facts before we do form that opinion.
I don't know how old you are, but I was an adult when Carter was the president, it was awful for those of us living/working overseas on a US military base. Since his presidency, he has done some good with the Habitat for Humanity project, however, he has also done some harm with his meddeling.


I agree with georgeob1 who says (I paraphrase) that he believes Carter was a good man but a bad leader. I wasn't old enough to care when he was president, but I do believe he has good intentions and has done a lot of good. I don't agree with his religious take on things, though, but whatever works for others I can't judge.


I not only was old enough to remember Jimmy Carter, I was old enough to vote for him and did based on my belief that he was a good, decent man. The first time around. Not the second. His Presidency was a disaster on so many fronts. He probably is a very decent man. But a rewrite of history born out of anti-Israeli or worse, anti-Semitism, is not a decent act.

To put things in perspective, here is the 1980 electoral map. The red states are the ones Carter won and as I recall, all of those were by razor thin margins.

http://www.presidentelect.org/images/e1980_ecmap.GIF
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 02:24 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Boosted images of both (MAPS) can be found here.


season's greetings, ducks !

i looked at the maps you provided... and from what i can tell, they are not identical works in copyright terms.

the shape of israel and it's surrounds are the same, but hey, that's the way that the world has agreed they look. it would be the same with two professionally drawn maps of the u.s. or the u.k. or whatever.

could be wrong, i don't think the case is gonna go anywhere.


Hiya DTOM. I don't think anything will come of it either, but I'll wait and see. It seems like there has been time to analyse the maps by now but what do I know?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 02:28 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
He probably is a very decent man. But a rewrite of history born out of anti-Israeli or worse, anti-Semitism, is not a decent act.


Please support these accusations or I have to beg you to stop making them.

Quote:
To put things in perspective, here is the 1980 electoral map. The red states are the ones Carter won and as I recall, all of those were by razor thin margins.


Thanks for the map, but the magnitude of his loss to Reagan doesn't interest me at all and, as far as I know, doesn't lend anything or take anything from his credibility.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 02:35 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
He probably is a very decent man. But a rewrite of history born out of anti-Israeli or worse, anti-Semitism, is not a decent act.


Please support these accusations or I have to beg you to stop making them.


For heavens sake, I've posted an article with Stein's comments, a book report by Dershowitz, and a book report from the Washington Post, all asserting to or suggesting that fact plus my own witness of Carter's anti-Israel sentiments. How much support do you require?

Quote:
To put things in perspective, here is the 1980 electoral map. The red states are the ones Carter won and as I recall, all of those were by razor thin margins.


Thanks for the map, but the magnitude of his loss to Reagan doesn't interest me at all and, as far as I know, doesn't lend anything or take anything from his credibility.[/quote]

Okay. But I thought the magnitude of his loss might suggest that the American people weren't as impressed with Carter's efforts as Carter seems to be impressed wtih them. (This is also referenced in the aforementioned article/book reports.)
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 02:37 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Sorry, I need something a little more specific then that before I'm going to trash a man.

Ok, good for you, we are all free to our own opinions & should have some facts before we do form that opinion.
I don't know how old you are, but I was an adult when Carter was the president, it was awful for those of us living/working overseas on a US military base. Since his presidency, he has done some good with the Habitat for Humanity project, however, he has also done some harm with his meddeling.


I agree with georgeob1 who says (I paraphrase) that he believes Carter was a good man but a bad leader. I wasn't old enough to care when he was president, but I do believe he has good intentions and has done a lot of good. I don't agree with his religious take on things, though, but whatever works for others I can't judge.

I don't agree with his religious take on some things either.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 02:53 pm
In the equal time department, here is what Jimmy Carter says to the critics in his own defense:

Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine
Jimmy Carter says his recent book is drawing knee-jerk accusations of anti-Israel bias.

By Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States. His newest book is "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," published last month. He is scheduled to sign books Monday at Vroman's in Pasadena.
December 8, 2006

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

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

The many 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. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. 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.

It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.

With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.

The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.

Although I have spent only a week or so on a book tour so far, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including "Larry King Live," "Hardball," "Meet the Press," "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," the "Charlie Rose" show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.

Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-Semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions." A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."

Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark ?-?- that I should be tried for treason ?-?- and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.

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

The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,7544738.story?coll=la-opinion-center
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 02:55 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

For heavens sake, I've posted an article with Stein's comments, a book report by Dershowitz, and a book report from the Washington Post, all asserting to or suggesting that fact plus my own witness of Carter's anti-Israel sentiments. How much support do you require?


And all third person accounts. To support the charge of anti-semitism, I require at the very least a quote from the accused or some documented action of the accused that demonstrates that he is an anti-semite. What you've posted are other people's overinflated and unsubstantiated accusations. The accusation that he is rewriting history is also not supported by anything but conjecture.

Quote:
Okay. But I thought the magnitude of his loss might suggest that the American people weren't as impressed with Carter's efforts as Carter seems to be impressed wtih them. (This is also referenced in the aforementioned article/book reports.)


Maybe it does, it just doesn't seem relevant.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 03:01 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
In the equal time department, here is what Jimmy Carter says to the critics in his own defense:

Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine
Jimmy Carter says his recent book is drawing knee-jerk accusations of anti-Israel bias.


....
Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."
...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,7544738.story?coll=la-opinion-center


A typically measured comment by Mr. Dershowitz.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 03:15 pm
FD writes
Quote:
And all third person accounts. To support the charge of anti-semitism, I require at the very least a quote from the accused or some documented action of the accused that demonstrates that he is an anti-semite. What you've posted are other people's overinflated and unsubstantiated accusations. The accusation that he is rewriting history is also not supported by anything but conjecture.


Yes, but that is what we have to work with. They suggested an anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic bias in Carter's book and I have not offered my own opinion about that as I have not read the book and all I have to go on is the opinion of others. Even if I did read the book, I'm not sure I would be inclined to take the time to check each of the points made against the historical record. Presumably, those writing the reviews have done that.

So, if the reviewers are correct in their analysis, it would be reasonable to assume that President Carter's own personal bias/prejudice/anti-whatever drove him to leave out the facts that would mitigate and provide a different conclusion than the one Carter present.

And if Carter did write from an anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic bias, then yes, the book is indecent and should be pronounced as such.

Again I don't know and have read nothing of two of the reviewers cited and I pretty much dislike Dershowitz in general. I do not personally dislike Jimmy Carter but have formed my own impressions about his take on the Middle East etc. from listening to him talk over the last couple of decades or so. The 'self defense' piece I just posted is the closest I've seen him come to even acknowledging anything Israel did right and even then he couldn't bring himself to commend Israel.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 03:22 pm
Opposition to Zionism is not New
May 1998 marked the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Zionist state called "Israel". True Torah Jews held a rally in Manhattan to demonstrate their opposition to Zionism. Several reknowned Rabbis addressed the crowd, in English and in Yiddish.

We have obtained video clips of the event and made them available for your viewing on this website.

Anti-Zionism Rally May 17 1998

Anti-Zionism Rally July 11, 1996
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 03:25 pm
"Judges should have to issue a "torture warrant" in each case. Thus we would not be winking an eye of quiet approval at torture while publicly condemning it." Dershowitz
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 03:29 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
FD writes
Quote:
And all third person accounts. To support the charge of anti-semitism, I require at the very least a quote from the accused or some documented action of the accused that demonstrates that he is an anti-semite. What you've posted are other people's overinflated and unsubstantiated accusations. The accusation that he is rewriting history is also not supported by anything but conjecture.


Yes, but that is what we have to work with. They suggested an anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic bias in Carter's book and I have not offered my own opinion about that as I have not read the book and all I have to go on is the opinion of others. Even if I did read the book, I'm not sure I would be inclined to take the time to check each of the points made against the historical record. Presumably, those writing the reviews have done that.


Yes, that is what we have to work with, and it's not enough to parrot the accusations further. When you say:

Foxfyre wrote:
He probably is a very decent man. But a rewrite of history born out of anti-Israeli or worse, anti-Semitism, is not a decent act.


... that implies that you hold the opinion or that it is an accepted fact. If you don't know if the accusations are true and don't intend to take the time to find out, then at least have the decency not to further the accusations.

Quote:
The 'self defense' piece I just posted is the closest I've seen him come to even acknowledging anything Israel did right and even then he couldn't bring himself to commend Israel.


If that's the case then maybe you should read the book. I've only read the first chapter but it is pretty much of the same cloth as his op-ed. He's been pretty consistent.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 04:04 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
FD writes
Quote:
And all third person accounts. To support the charge of anti-semitism, I require at the very least a quote from the accused or some documented action of the accused that demonstrates that he is an anti-semite. What you've posted are other people's overinflated and unsubstantiated accusations. The accusation that he is rewriting history is also not supported by anything but conjecture.


Yes, but that is what we have to work with. They suggested an anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic bias in Carter's book and I have not offered my own opinion about that as I have not read the book and all I have to go on is the opinion of others. Even if I did read the book, I'm not sure I would be inclined to take the time to check each of the points made against the historical record. Presumably, those writing the reviews have done that.


Yes, that is what we have to work with, and it's not enough to parrot the accusations further. When you say:

Foxfyre wrote:
He probably is a very decent man. But a rewrite of history born out of anti-Israeli or worse, anti-Semitism, is not a decent act.


... that implies that you hold the opinion or that it is an accepted fact. If you don't know if the accusations are true and don't intend to take the time to find out, then at least have the decency not to further the accusations.


No it doesn't. It only implies that IF he writes out of anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic bias, it would be indecent to do so. The reviewers of his work seem to think that to be the case. Based on other experience watching an dlistening to Jimmy Carter I definitely hold open that possibility. But if true, one indecent act neither sums up a man nor negates all that he is or has done. If we can't have that discussion, its pretty difficult to continue the thread don't you think? You had no qualms about criticizing Israel on the Israel, Hamas, etc. thread when you did not have all the facts.

Please present your evidence that the three reviewers (or I) am wrong about Jimmy Carter's book or the anti-Israeli bias that sure seems to be in there.

Quote:
The 'self defense' piece I just posted is the closest I've seen him come to even acknowledging anything Israel did right and even then he couldn't bring himself to commend Israel.


If that's the case then maybe you should read the book. I've only read the first chapter but it is pretty much of the same cloth as his op-ed. He's been pretty consistent.[/QUOTE]

Okay I just read Chapter 17 offered HERE
I have to say, he sure doesn't spend many words criticizing the Palestinians and expends quite a few criticizing Israel. And in the discussion of the Camp David etc. accords, he completely omitted Bill Clinton's efforts on that score.

I give the points to the reviewers on that chapter.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 04:23 pm
To Israel's supporters, everyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite.

I've seen Jews called anti-semites to their face.. because they had the temerity to say that maybe Israel shouldn't steal land and kill kids, even if they do have problems themselves.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 04:27 pm
Those who refuse to acknowledge the persecution of the Palestinians are fully exposed as anti-semites.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 04:37 pm
Carter may not have been a good president by any stretch, but he's a decent man with ethics and humanity. Can't say the same for those who call Carter an anti-semite.

I'd stand on the same side as Carter any day 24/7 against all of his antagonists.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 04:54 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Carter may not have been a good president by any stretch, but he's a decent man with ethics and humanity. Can't say the same for those who call Carter an anti-semite.

I'd stand on the same side as Carter any day 24/7 against all of his antagonists.


Stand next to this bear.... nothing better than a bear having your back.....
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 04:59 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Carter may not have been a good president by any stretch, but he's a decent man with ethics and humanity. Can't say the same for those who call Carter an anti-semite.

I'd stand on the same side as Carter any day 24/7 against all of his antagonists.

& i can't say the same for anybody that would want the palestinnians to stael land from Israel rather than the Palestinnians to take back their own land. I mean, if you want the palestinnians to have what is rightly theirs.
Why is it that nobody wants the palestinnains?
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 05:00 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
To Israel's supporters, everyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite.

I've seen Jews called anti-semites to their face.. because they had the temerity to say that maybe Israel shouldn't steal land and kill kids, even if they do have problems themselves.

Cycloptichorn

No, not everyone[/b] but when anybody blames israel for all of the palestinnians woes, then I do wonder about that person & do believe that he or she is an anti-Semite.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 08:33:35