The World According To Jimmy Carter

Perhaps you are unaware, but Israel is in fact responsible for the woes of many Palestinians and the architects of their current terrible situation.

Cycloptichorn

Israel's Aparthied Wall Aims at Ethnic Cleansing
By Mustafa Barghouthi
Daily Star
October 27, 2003

The Israeli construction of the West Bank apartheid wall is clearly a politically motivated maneuver intent on reshaping the West Bank, rendering impossible a viable Palestinian state, and with it any lasting peace through a two state solution.

In reshaping the West Bank and slicing off huge portions of Palestinian land east of the 1967 border, Israel has also annexed thousands of Palestinians ­ Palestinians it is now trying to expel through forceful expulsion but also through destroying any remaining quality of life within this isolated area of land.

On Oct. 2, the Israeli military released an order declaring all occupied West Bank land between the "security" wall and Israel's pre-occupation 1967 border a "closed zone." The order states that "no person will enter the (closed zone) and no one will remain there." Free access to the closed zone will only be granted to "Israelis." In this Oct. 2 order, General Moshe Kaplinski defines "Israelis" as any citizen of the state of Israel, resident of the state of Israel, and any one eligible to emigrate to Israel in accordance with the Law of Return, 1950. This means therefore, that while the 15,300 Palestinian residents in this 115 square kilometer area, or those in adjoining communities who own agricultural land here (180,000 people) must now obtain highly unreliable permits to validate their existence, any Jewish person from anywhere in the world is quite free to come and settle on this land.

The order stipulates that all crossing into the isolated areas is prohibited unless a "permit" from the occupation "civil administration" is obtained, which can only be done by land owners who "prove" that they have land residing behind the wall or are "officially registered" workers. Farmers and residents are fearful however that were they to apply for "permits" the well-grounded reality is that they would be denied on the basis that their Jordanian land certificates will not be recognized ­ Israeli authorities are all too aware that the majority of Palestinian certificates are Jordanian since land registration in the West Bank took place under Jordanian rule prior to the 1967 occupation.

On the ground this policy is already causing extensive suffering. The prevention of access to land has meant that many families are losing their livelihoods ­ farmers prevented access to their crops are forced to watch their untended crops rot ­ either that or see their produce stolen by settlers free to wander through Palestinian lands.

The idea of applying for a permit to be on one's own land is rejected by Palestinians who have been on these lands for generations. Those few who have sought permits have been confronted with a haphazard policy of discrimination which randomly rejects applications for permits citing various criteria yet at the same time failing to establish any formal set of guidelines. Many heads of households for instance have already been denied permits to reside in their villages on the grounds that they were not born there. Furthermore those who are granted permits are not assured permanent residency rights ­ the permits are to be renewed from "time to time" as demanded by the occupation civil administration.

Palestinian efforts to protest this latest stunt in Israel's ongoing colonization process have been met with severe punishment. The community of Jubara for instance lies west of the apartheid wall and is completely isolated within the de facto annexed area. Jubara has no schools or health facilities of its own. Residents have always depended on reaching nearby Kafryat for such services yet residents are doing their utmost to defy the occupation's system of expulsion and permits. As a result the village has remained under closure for more than 16 days ­ no one is allowed in or out which, considering that all services are only available outside the village, is having stark consequences for the residents.

The obvious intention of the Israeli government is to see that the reality of forced poverty and starvation, brought on by the imposition of the wall and the new "closed zones" become so unbearable for communities in the northern West Bank that people choose to leave in the hope of finding a better life. The village of Jubara is just one of many cases being fatally affected in this latest attempt by Israel and its military to cleanse the recently seized "closed zone" of all its Palestinian inhabitants and thus annex the land, and its existing illegal settlers to Israel proper.

Mustafa Barghouthi is director of the Health, Development, Information, and Policy Institute in Ramallah, Palestine and the general secretary of the Palestine National Initiative.

Foxfyre, if I were speaking of you and said "Foxfyre is probably a decent person, but buggering boys with turkey basters, especially when they don't want you to, is indecent", what would you take the implication to be. I think you're backpedaling.



No, the reviewers with a clear pro-Israel bias seem to think so. Why would you take one biased opinion over another?



Specifically what things did you see or hear that convince you to hold open that possibility.



Specifically what are you talking about?



It seems to be there because someone told you it is? I don't need to present evidence because the reviewers never make the case. There's nothing specific to refute but "he should have said..."'s. It's wholly one person's opinion and completely subjective.




And where was he indecent, anti-semitic, or dishonest?



Is the book about Clinton's efforts?

BTW, when I said I had only read the first chapter, it was actually the first 4 -- they go fast on the audio books. I felt I should clarify. Thanks for posting the link to chapter 17.

These responses from those who have read Carter's book pretty much explains the "truth."

A reviewer, avid reader, 11/29/2006
Carter At His Best
I read this wonderful book in two days. Finally, an American president has the courage and the profound sense of justice to stand up against The Israeli-American lobby and tell the Truth as he sees it. Mr Carter presented the facts and exposed the deceptive lies that have been carried on by our white house, our congress and senate and the vicious Israeli lobby who worked shamelessly hard to distort the facts from the American public with unwaivering help from our media networks. mr Carter's candid, compassionate and honest detailing of the historical facts about the Palestinian tragedy and his profound sense of the continuing injustice meted out against the Palestinians is honorable & amirable. He clearly explained why the Israeli illegal occupation of Palestine is nothing short of apartheid because of the blatant grab of land, oppression of Palestinians and the cruel imprisonment of children. Congratulation Mr Carter. It is a must read book and justice will prevail when the truth comes out.
Also recommended: Please read Rashid Khalidi's 'The Iron Cage', Robert Pelton's 'Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror'

Mike, A reviewer, 12/03/2006
Eye-opener
I have learned a lot from this book. It is amazing what facts our (US) media does not report about the Palestinian-Israeli crisis. There are two sides to every story--this book opened my eyes to the side you never really hear about.

Samer K. Fam, A reviewer, 11/30/2006
The first outsanding book about the middle east
In simple words, president Carter laysout a platform for a true peaceful road map. There are lots of places in this book where the reader feels he is out of his comfort zone...as an American, I beleive so much in the only man that brough peace not war to the middle east...MY best

Reader, A reviewer, 11/30/2006
the real truth
finally some one with jimmy carter experience speak the truth about the stiuation in the middle east. this is some one who won the Noble prize for peace. Tank and F16 never bring peace but a true, fair, and honest dialogue. this expresedent seen it all and done it all.

Sam, hopeing for Middle East Peace, 12/08/2006
Great Book, Eye opening
This book lays out the plan for Middle East Peace. It gives you a behind the scenes look at past events, and lays out the frame work for a lasting peace. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand more about the Middle East.

Hanna Hanania ([email protected]), A reviewer, 12/10/2006
Recommand Reading
Outstanding book.

Yez Kaoosji, A reviewer, 12/09/2006
An Honest Assessment
President Carter has once again proved that one needs to rise above politics to examine issues as they are, and to boldly address the core problems. With statesmanlike honesty he has called the Middle East situation what it really is. It takes courage in the USA to criticize Israel, and this book demonstrates that Jimmy Carter has that courage. This book should be required reading for anyone who genuinely cares to understand the Middle East situation, and the role of the modern state of Israel which was created out of British controlled Palestine following World War II.

A reviewer, A reviewer, 12/09/2006
Why they hate us
It is for the first time an american president have the courage to say the right, what people is facing and why america is hated all over the arab world, this is only because of blind support to israel, this what made israel state out of law.

A reviewer, Mike from Carlsbad, 12/10/2006
Kiiling the Messenger
I found this book to be both informative and enlightning. Anyone interested in learning the background of this tragic situation, from the perspective of both the Palestinians and of the Israelies, should take the time to read this book. As an objective observer of this conflict, it's ironic to me that the same politicians and others who have been critical of the book are the same people who previously held President Carter in such high esteem as an elder statesman, a champion of human rights and as a watchdog for fair elections around the world. No past president in my lifetime has accomplished so much with his life in attempting to use his influence and stature to try improve the condition of humanity, domestically and in Third World countries. He has been universally viewed as a man with the the highest degree of integrity, ethics and compassion. A man who has held fast to his convictions and has had the courage to speak out about unpopular issues. In doing so, he has earned the respect and credibility of millions of people around the world. He was one of the first mainstream politicians to speak out against the war in Iraq, long before it became popular to do so. Prior to the publishing of this book, he would have been given a standing ovation at any Democratic party function or speaking engagement and now these same politicians and others who would have been on their feet at these functions have been viciously attacking this courageous man of peace. It's the ultimate in hypocrisy and a classic example of killing the messenger.

A reviewer, A reviewer, 11/25/2006
Unpopular truths from our most honorable exPresident
Please understand, I HAVE read this book. I read it in one sitting. It is a straightforward discription of the realities of why there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians from a man who was deeply involved in the many negotiations of the last 30 years. Ultimately although it is true that Palestinians have used violence to resist their occupation, the sad truth is that Israel has never made any real attempts to negotiate a viable peace, but instead uses every harsher tactics to maintain the occupation and confiscation of Palestinian territory. Mr. Carter continues to be the voice in the wilderness crying out what we must do to have peace. As he says in his last chapter, the way is actually very simple if Israel and the United States decided to pursue it.

After clicking on Fox's link I realized that I've already read that piece and in fact linked to it on the other Carter thread. I don't see any dishonesty, anti-semitism, or anything else in that chapter. Maybe there's something specific there that someone would like to dispute?

I am also aware of the pallestinnians wreaking havoc everwhere they go. Heard about the latest Hamas evil that happened in the Gaza strip just today?
What in the world is good about a peoples that have said they will drive the Israelis into the sea? You think the Israelis should just set there & twiddle their thumbs? Iran is also threatening the same thing. Israel was given to the Jews by the UN, you know, that hell hole on high that so many here seem to believe is the best thing since sliced bread.

I hear this a lot. Does anyone know who actually said this and when?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

What in the world is good about a peoples that have said they will drive the Israelis into the sea?

FD wrote:
I hear this a lot. Does anyone know who actually said this and when?


Is this anything like "I'm a uniter, not a divider?" or "We will be welcomed as liberators!"

FD, I have explained as much as I know on this subject. All your questions have been answered by me or via reference to the sources provided, but you have essentially rejected those. Rewording the same questions and putting them out there again won't elicit a different response from me and I prefer not to play that game. If you don't see what some of us see in Carter's writing or more precisely in what Carter has omitted from his writing, then you don't see it. I accept that.

C.I. cherry picked glowing reviews and that is his prerogative. I could go to Amazon.com and copy and paste numerous scathing review--probably the bulk of the more than 100 reviews left there--but what would that prove? You seem to dismiss anybody who disapproves of Carter's book on the basis that they are biased.

I presume you think everybody who likes the book isn't biased.

I will leave you with one more book review, this time from CAMERA:

Jimmy Carter Distorts Facts, Demonizes Israel in New Book

Former President Jimmy Carter has written an egregiously biased book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and is currently doing numerous interviews to sell the book and its ideas. Carter is attempting to rewrite history, and in his alternate universe, Arabs parties are blameless and Israel is at fault for almost all the conflicts in the world. One gets the feeling after reading just a few pages that if he could have blamed Hurricane Katrina on Israel, he would have. His main messages are that Israel is badly mistreating the Palestinians and that the cause of the conflict is Israel's refusal to return to what he calls its "legal borders" (sic), the pre-67 armistice lines.

Because the Palestinian Arabs have been offered a viable state of their own numerous times, including with the same borders that Carter desires (right after the '67 War), but they turned it down since it meant recognizing Israel's legitimacy and permanence and ending the conflict, Carter either ignores or mischaracterize the offers. He never lets the facts get in the way of his "must blame Israel" theories. In Carter's twisted universe, it is the Arabs who have always been eager for peace, with Israel opposing it at every turn.

Professor Alan Dershowitz has written an excellent critique of the book. Read it by clicking here . We will not repeat the issues he covers, but many of them are key problems of the book, so please be sure to read his review.

In addition to the numerous errors and distortions pointed out by Dershowitz, there are many other problems in the book. Almost every page is problematic, so this list is not complete.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

For example, Carter said on the Nov 28 Newshour:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since Carter is a former president, and because he is well known for his work on Habitat for Humanity, interviewers are for the most part being entirely deferential to him, while rarely pointing out that his book and statements are filled with inaccuracies and distortions. But Carter should not be allowed to rewrite history and erase decades of Arab bigotry, rejectionism and terror, while inventing Israeli intransigence and opposition to peace.
SOURCE

Where does Carter say the Arabs are blameless and the Isralis are at fault for all the conflicts? I didn't even read the book, but I know better than to believe such trash without the accuser providing evidence from the book.

The writer also claims the Palestinians have been offered a viable state. Prove it. How in the world does anyone establish a "viable state" when their property is taken away without any legal recourse? Talk about bullshet, your article is full of it.

Bill Clinton offered Arafat 95% of what Arafat wanted, but that wasn't good enough, Arafat wanted the Israelis gone from Israel, drive them into the sea
http://wwwisraelnewsagency.com/regionalhistory.html

Defenders of Israeli anti-semitic and anti-Jewish atrocities against Palestinians should steer clear of the videos available on this page. "Israeli Attack on Peaceful Protesters in Occupied Gaza" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxBU-Otdefk

blueflame, It's against 14, 15 and 16 year olds who were peacefully demonstrating.

No, they haven't. And that's why I keep asking them. Neither you nor the reviewers you cite have shown passages in the book that are anti-semitic, dishonest, or indecent. I understand the reason is because you can't find any and you wish to redefine those words to mean "critical of Israel", which won't fly.



There is no game. I'm aware that you can't answer the questions because you don't have the resources to answer them, which makes me wonder why you're so willing to join in the condemnation.



It is not possible for me to see what you see since neither of us have read the entire book and you have not specified anything in it to justify your parroted accusations. What can you "see" in his writing not having read the book? You're only complaint is that he is "critical of Israel". That isn't enough to justify the accusations that were made.



No, I'm dismissing clearly biased reviews. Can you find me an unbiased review?



You presume too much. I think that pro-Palestinian groups will probably love it but they would also clearly be biased. Still, I think there is a lot of useful information in the book about what life is really like for others in the middle east besides Israelis. Some of us are curious about that, others don't think it matters.



Another unbiased review.

When you say "unbiased", do you mean one that agrees with Carter? Is that the only truly unbiased sources you would accept FD?

Crikey, McG. How about just one that is not affiliated with a pro-Israel group? Do you mean to tell me that if I posted four reviews from people or publications that had strong ties to the Palestinian cause you would take those at face value?

Actually, to be fair, the Goldberg review wasn't as biased as the others. That's probably the best I'm going to get.

I suspect that unless Carter gets raving reviews--FD has not complained that such reviews already cited are biased--nobody is going to be able to criticize Carter's book without FD thinking they are biased. And FD, that looks very much like bias. (I love ya, you know, and I don't care if you are biased on the side of Carter.)

The thing is, I can't find that any of the critics have misrepresented the problems with the book and I agree with them that what appear to be deliberate omissions of fact that would have mitigated the facts Carter cites indicates a very strong bias on Carter's part. Whether this represents antisemitism, I can't say because I don't know his heart. But it is pretty obvious to me that he has come down solidly on the side of the Palestinians and their supporters while scarely representing Israel's side of it. That suggests a strong anti-Israel bias.

Another link to Carters wrongheadedness, although it's probably futile to post another since some will never accept that a democrat could be so wrong.
http://mideasttruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348

I have to call bullshit. I'm not parroting the claims of the other reviews, which were not even published in major papers but were individual reviews on Amazon (or wherever) that I don't feel hold any weight compared to what has been posted. I did not post those reviews to make my case. I have not addressed them at all or claimed that they were right in their criticism. If I were, then you would be correct in accusing me of bias. Are you saying that the reviews you posted are not biased?




The fact that you agree with them without having read the book I find astonishing. I don't agree or disagree, but I recognize that they are expressing an opinion and have not raised any factual challenge to the book at all. Goldberg, in fact, appears to be challenging Carter's claim that there is apartheid in the Palestinian territories -- a claim he himself made in the New Yorker 2 years ago and was excoriated by CAMERA (source of another one of your "unbiased" reviews) for. Neither you nor the reviewers you cite can substantiate your claims of anti-semitism, obscenity, or dishonesty. Your sole criticism seems to be that his book makes Israel look bad.



Oh, but you already did say, or at least implied.



It's obvious to you, based on some pro-Israel book reviews that you've read. If he's wrong about life in the territories, show me. What specifically is he wrong about? That's what I'm asking, have been asking, and will continue to ask. I would love a debate on the merits of his argument. What I don't enjoy is having to reign in the personal trashfest that immediately follows the release of unpopular opinions. You and others here, as well some op-ed writers immediately jumped on the discredit wagon because you don't like what the book says. It's a clever way to avoid having to challenge his arguments, but it pretty much exposes your own and their clear biases.