Carter's about-face betrays Jews, Christians

[everythingsxen]

We are in that season when Jews celebrate one of their few successful rebellions against oppression. Christians celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. How ironic, then, that Jewish-Americans are embroiled in a grim struggle against a Christian former president who is tainting our holiday joy.

A former president whose legacy has rested on bringing about peace between Arabs and Jews has turned his back on that to become a partisan. A man whose Christian values made him see both sides in a tragic conflict has become blind to one side's suffering. A man who walked in paths of peace has now become an obstacle to peace.

---SNIP---

We know what happens when the right of Jews to exist is denied, but Carter has forgotten. The "Historical Chronology" at the beginning of his book starts with Abraham and grows more detailed in modern times. But between 1939 and 1947 there is . . . nothing!

In the text, the history of Jewish suffering is accorded five lines, and the Holocaust is barely mentioned in passing. But as both Hanukkah and Christmas remind us, Jews are history's most persecuted people, and Israel, where we started, is our last, best refuge. Carter's bizarre book is a poisoned holiday gift for Jews and Christians, and a danger to Jews throughout the world.

MORE

[bullimiami]

1. sadly this man sees israel with blinders on and it distorts his reality.

[DianeG5385]

2. Carter has done more for Israel than any detractor of his

He speaks the truth and it's a hard pill to swallow when only one point of view is acceptable and an entire class of people are dehumanized. Carter gets it, he's strong enough to take the criticism, he's hoping for a reopening of dialogue so ALL can live in peace. Israel needs to give the land back. They are not the only ones with a right to exist.

[everythingsxen]

8. "Israel needs to give the land back."

And what becomes of the people of Israel? Return to the Diaspora? Is the Palestinian claim to the land more valid than Israels?

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. President Carter is hardly suggesting anything of the sort

--at absolute maximum, President Carter supports Israel withdrawing to its border recognized by international law which would, at absolute maximum, grant the Palestinians a homeland and state on 22% of historic Palestine.

President Carter has endorsed the Geneva Accord as a model Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement

link to website regarding the Geneva Accord:

http://www.geneva-accord.org/Accord.aspx?FolderID=33&lang=en

[everythingsxen]

10. Is that what Diane was referring to?

From the post it was rather unclear.

[Phx_Dem]

15. Hamas rejected the Geneva Initiative.

In fact the Palestinian leadership have rejected every offer ever made.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. at an earlier time Hamas had indicated that they would accept

the Saudi Peace Plan, however after a series targeted assassinations and other attacks they have backed off from that.

The Fatah-lead Palestinian leadership have NEVER been offered a sovereign and viable Palestinian state and they certainly have NEVER been offered a settlement even remotely based on the minimum requirements of international law thus they have never had the opportunity to accept such an offer.

Here is a quote from Former Israeli Foreign Minister Schlomo Ben-Ami regarding possible negotiations between Israel and Hamas:

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

"SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, Hamas. I think that in my view there is almost sort of poetic justice with this victory of Hamas. After all, what is the reason for this nostalgia for Arafat and for the P.L.O.? Did they run the affairs of the Palestinians in a clean way? You mentioned the corruption, the inefficiency. Of course, Israel has contributed a lot to the disintegration of the Palestinian system, no doubt about it, but their leaders failed them. Their leaders betrayed them, and the victory of Hamas is justice being made in many ways. So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy.

And with these people, I think they are much more pragmatic than is normally perceived. In the 1990s, they invented the concept of a temporary settlement with Israel. 1990s was the first time that Hamas spoke about a temporary settlement with Israel. In 2003, they declared unilaterally a truce, and the reason they declared the truce is this, that with Arafat, whose the system of government was one of divide and rule, they were discarded from the political system. Mahmoud Abbas has integrated them into the political system, and this is what brought them to the truce. They are interested in politicizing themselves, in becoming a politic entity. And we need to try and see ways where we can work with them.

Now, everybody says they need first to recognize the state of Israel and end terrorism. Believe me, I would like them to do so today, but they are not going to do that. They are eventually going to do that in the future, but only as part of a quid pro quo, just as the P.L.O. did it. The P.L.O., when Rabin came to negotiate with them, also didn't recognize the state of Israel, and they engaged in all kind of nasty practices. And therefore, we need to be much more realistic and abandon worn-out cliches and see whether we can reach something with these people. I believe that a long-term interim agreement between Israel and Hamas, even if it is not directly negotiated between the parties, but through a third party, is feasible and possible."
__________

Here are some details with sources and references about what the Palestinian leadership has been offered:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Douglas%20Carpenter/265
__________________

Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is a neutral and dispassionate look at the Camp David negotiations and the Taba talks. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University Connecticut

link:

http://www.samed-syr.org/CampDavidAndTaba.pdf
________

link to the European Union summary notes regarding the Taba -- Jan 2001 talks -(The Geneva Accord is viewd by most observers as an extention of Taba)- link: http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html
_________________________


here is one recent poll with a extensive breakdown of Palestinian opinion

Some believe that a two-state formula is the favored solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, while others believe that historic Palestine can’t be divided and thus the favored solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights. Which of these solutions do you prefer?

Two-state solution: an Israeli
state and a Palestinian state
52.4%

Bi-national state on all
of historic Palestine
23.6%

No solution
9.4%

One Palestinian state
7.4%

Islamic state
2.9%

Others
2.0%

Don’t know
1.0%

No answer
1.3%

Source: Jerusalem Media & Communication Center
Methodology --
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12493

[Violet_Crumble]

20. So did Israel...

And just out of curiousity, how many genuine offers have been made? The way yr talking, you seem to think there's been countless offers...

[Phx_Dem]

22. Israel accepted the Clinton parameters

and provided some written reservations/concerns. Abu Ala, the speaker of the Palestinian Legislature at the time stated in al-Ayyam that "the Palestinians refused to accept the Clinton initiative as a basis for negotiations"

[Violet_Crumble]

23. So far you've come up with no genuine offers from Israel...

btw, you wouldn't happen a link to that al-Ayyam article? I'm assuming you do seeing as how yr quoting him from it. See, I think that comment should be read in context...

[Phx_Dem]

31. The '47 partition plan was a genuine offer

that the Palestinians rejected. Camp David/Taba is another but I understand that we might disagree about the whether the two sides were negotiating in good faith.

As for the quote, it is footnote number 60 in the Pressman analysis that Douglas kindly provided in this thread.

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. I will grant that 47/48 might have been a strategic error

on the part of the Palestinian leadership. However, in the context of the time with much of the Zionist movement claiming that their acceptance was only a first step and with open talk of transferring major portions of the Palestinian population and with 66% of the population being offered 45% of the land it may not have seemed like a very generous or even a very wise offer at the time.

In retrospect, since the indigenous Palestinian independence movement had already been bitterly defeated and most of its leadership exiled by the British as a result of the rebellion of 1936-1939, it may now seem apparent that accepting the 47 partition would have at least left the Palestinians in a stronger position.

The question now is what to do about the whole matter? The Geneva Accord as well as the Saudi Peace Plan offers an alternative with a two-state solution. If expansionism continues then a two-state solution well become completely nonviable. Then the only options as-demographics accelerate to the advantage of the Palestinians-will either be massive expulsion or some form of a single-state solution.
_________________

University of Michigan - Department of Middle East Studies:

" Arabs opposed this decision (47 partition) for four reasons: First, 66% of the population was Arab, and Jews held only 6% of the land. Second, Palestinians questioned the legality of Resolution 181 since the British Mandate specified that the opinions of the inhabitants must be taken into account in any decisions. Since 2/3 of the people in Palestine were Arabs, they maintained that the creation of a "Jewish" state against the will of the Arab majority could not be legal. Third, neighboring independent Arab states feared that Israel would be an agent of powerful Western nations that would use it to dominate the region. Finally, Muslims and many Christians (the Catholic Church most prominently) felt that the significance of Palestine and Jerusalem to all three faiths--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--should be respected.

When the dust settled in January 1949 a Jewish state was in place but the Palestinian Arab state had been stillborn. The declaration of a Jewish state in May 1948 sparked a war. This war was made worse by the determination of Arab leaders to keep Palestine united and to resist a Jewish state, and by the determination of Israelis to expand the size of their state to include part of the proposed Palestinian state."

link:

http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentlesson3.html

[The Magistrate]

51. The University Of Michigan, Sir, Would Seem To Be Doing Its Students Some Dis-Service

Most of these points are erroneous, some glaringly so.

Most important is the third: it is as anachronistic as telegraph message to George Washington. The chief neighboring independent Arab states, Jordan and Egypt, were still essentially protectorates of England, as was Iraq. Lebanon was wholly dependent on France, and the ties between France and Syria remained close. European dominance of the area was a fact acknowledged by all. Creation of Israel was hardly a necessity for that dominance, and relations between Israel and England, the chief foreign influence, were bitterly hostile: in fact, near the close of hostilities in '48, small clashes occured between Israeli and English military forces, and an English threat to intervene on behalf of Egypt helped halt the fighting. This point is the importation of a modern concern into the past, rather than a reading of the actual state of affairs at the time.

The '47 Partition, if not its eventual outcome, fully recognized the signifigance of Jerusalem to the various faiths, by setting that city aside as an International City free of either state. The objections cited by the University over-view really cannot be taken seriously, particularly not in the light of a history of hostility by the Wafq of the al'Aksa to Jewish services at the remnant of the Temple, including major and murderous riots during the Mandatory period, or the long hostility to Judaism the Catholic Church had displayed in Europe as well as the Near East, sufficient to eventually move a modern Pope to apologize for and abjure it only a few years ago.

The directions of the League of Nations to England regarding the Mandatory Territory did not give the Arab population a veto over the establishment of a Jewish 'national home', and the League of Nation's directions to England were not binding in any case on the United Nations in its disposing of the territory it had inherented trusteeship of and authority over from that body. The United Nations was free to do whatever it desired, and thought the best way to settle the dispute among the inhabitants of the place: what it said was legal simply was legal, and there is no independent standard to which appeal could really be made. One may think the decision wrong, mis-guided, immoral or whatever, but no ground exists for calling it illegal.

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. I think if you read the entirety of that lesson plan, Mr. Magistrate

you will see an attempt to explain common thinking among both Zionist and Arab nationalist.

The article-lesson does not actually say that the partition was illegal. It points out that many Arab nationalist considered it illegal for not considering the will of the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of British Mandate Palestine. Nor does the article-lesson suggest that Israel was a necessary means of Western dominance of the region. But in an era of great rebellion against colonial rule, it was perceived that way by a great many people in the region. And it is fair to say that most Muslims and many Christians in the Arab world would have had objections based on religious oriented convictions.

But I think the main objection regarding partition and the Zionist project itself was best expressed by Benny Morris, "the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor that drove Arab antagonism to Zionism." And even the Peel Commission recommended a major transfer of Arabs out of their proposed much smaller version of a partitioned Zionist state.

I think you would agree Sir, that in politics at all levels and in all societies; perception of reality is frequently far more important than reality itself. In retrospect it is easy to perceive that rejection of partition only made things worse for the Arabs of Palestine and at the very least hastened or may have even provided a legitimized cover for displacement and dispossession. In November of 1947 it is unlikely that it would have been perceived that way by the Arab population of Palestine.

[Phx_Dem]

53. It's a lesson plan for high school students

"About a hundred years ago, Jews underwent a major change in how they though of themselves. At first a few, and then more, began to call themselves Zionists. Zionism is a term that in its broadest and early sense meant simply the "return" of Jews to their ancestral homeland. That homeland was called Zion (or Israel) and its heart was Jerusalem, known as the "city of Zion."
http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentlesson2.html

Well he is only off by about 2000 years. Professor Stockton is an idiot.

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. Zionism as a modern political movement did develop in the late 1800's

I don't think there is anyone who disputes that. At least I have never heard of anyone disputing that.

Here is a quote form the Jewish Virtual Library -- a VERY pro-Israel and VERY pro-Zionist website/organization:

"Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term "Zionism" was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum."

link: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html

and from another very pro-Israeli website:

"Zionism did not spring full blown from a void with the creation of the Zionist movement in 1897. Jews had lived in "Eretz Yisrael (called Palestine by the Romans and Greeks) since about 1200 years B.C.E. The land was at a crossroads of the Middle East and the Mediterranean and was therefore conquered many times: by Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Seleucid Greeks and Romans, as well as invading Philistines. Of these, only the Jews made the land into their national home. Jewish national culture, fused with religion, centered around the geography, seasons and history of the land and of the Jews in the land. The Jews created the Old Testament Bible- The Tanach, which described their history and the history of the land, and their connection to it. The bible formed the backbone of Jewish culture and later was to form the backbone of Western Christian culture, so that the entire world recognized the connection between the Jews and their land. When the Romans conquered Palestine, and Jews were exiled, the connection to the land was preserved in the Bible, and in prayers that daily called for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and it was expressed in the writings of medieval poets, "

"Theodor Herzl and the Foundation of the Zionist Movement
The Dreyfus affair, which developed in France beginning in 1893, made Western European Jews conscious of their national identity, and in particular, affected a young Vienna journalist, TTheodor Herzl and his friend Max Nordau. Herzl's pamphlet Der Judenstaat, The Jewish State, was published in 1896. Herzl's plan for creating a Jewish State, arrived at after contemplating other solutions as well, provided the practical program of Zionism, and led to the first Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, in August, 1897 ’”

link - http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_history.htm

[Phx_Dem]

56. this section of the lesson plan does not provide enough detail

"About a hundred years ago, Jews underwent a major change in how they though of themselves."

The above sentence is just wrong. Zionism as a political mvmt started in the late 1800s, but the overall concept is an integral part of jewish liturgy going back thousands of years. Here is how Wiki explains it:

"While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, where the concept of Jewish nationhood is thought to have first evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era, <4><5> the modern movement was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism."
....
"The desire of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland has remained a universal Jewish theme since the defeat of the Great Jewish Revolt, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Empire in the year 70, the later defeat of Bar Kokhba's revolt in 135, and the dispersal of the Jews to other parts of the Empire that followed."

The political idea of Zionism stems from the biblical concept of Aliyah.

"Aliyah is an important Jewish cultural concept and a fundamental concept of Zionism that is enshrined in Israel's Law of Return, which permits any Jew the legal right to assisted immigration and settlement in Israel, as well as automatic Israeli citizenship."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah

With that first sentence, the Professor demonstrated a profound ignorance of Judaism.

[oberliner]

57. Do you speak Arabic?

If so, can you figure out how to search the al-Ayyam online archives? I can get google to translate the home page, but I can't manage to do a search to past issues (not sure even if it is possible).

If you are willing to accept the English tranlsation from MEMRI, that site offers a few additional sentences which may provide more context for the cited quote:

"We refused to accept the Clinton initiative as a basis for the negotiations. The Israelis said that Clinton's proposal should be the basis, but we rejected it. Therefore, when Clinton said that 80% of the settlers should be absorbed , we asked: according to what criterion?! According to what logic? These criteria have no meaning for us and therefore we do not see them as a basis . As far as we are concerned, the International Legitimacy are the basis for negotiations."

According to that site, the quotation can be found in al-Ayyam, January 29, 2001. Be advised that there is a PA newspaper with that name as well as a Yemeni one. This site indicates that the quote is found in the PA one.

al-Ayyam (PA) home page (in Arabic): http://www.al-ayyam.com/znews/site/default.aspx

Memri page with cited quotation: http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP18401

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. it is quite clear from the European Union notes that negotiations

well underway until Israel unilaterally withdrew on th 28th of January 2001 on the eve of Israeli elections. The Palestinians certainly did not reject an offer.

Mr. Sharon who was widely expected to win had already stated publicly that he would not accept the results of these negotiations and Mr. Barak distanced himself from the negotiations:

Here is a link to the European Union summary document regarding the Taba talks first published in Haaretz on February 14, 2001:

"Moratinos Document" - The peace that nearly was at Taba

By Akiva Eldar

Ha'aretz
14 February 2002 - link: http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

snip" This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to the rest of Mr. Eldar's analysis as well as complete summary documents known as the "Moratinos Document"

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

__________________________

Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University Connecticut

link:

http://www.samed-syr.org/CampDavidAndTaba.pdf
_________________________

[T Wolf]

3. Am I supposed to believe that because of past discrimination against

Jewish people, Israel forever gets a pass?

As a Jew, I am offended by this. This type of victimization mindset will only serve to give those who really are anti-semetic an excuse to remain so.

President Carter has been the only US president to take a realistic view of the mid-east in my lifetime.

[Lena inRI]

5. Bravo, T Wolf. . .

you said it all. . .you said it best. . .you have cut to the chase.

Thanks. I second your sentiments exactly.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Spinoza]

58. Excuse me?

"This type of victimization mindset will only serve to give those who really are anti-semetic an excuse to remain so."

As if anti-semites need EXCUSES.

[earthside]

4. Bull Crap.

I'm on page 195 of Carter's book.

What is this fellow talking about? Carter is actually pretty tame in his descriptions of what Israel is doing and wants to do to the Palestinians.

This guy Konner is just another "Israel can do no wrong" propagandist. This bunch is so manipulative that any (and I mean any) criticism of Israel is immediately pounced upon as "anti-semitic."

What the "Israel can do no wrong" bunch really can't stand is an American with credibility, like President Carter, telling the truth about Israel's attrocious behavior towards the Palestinian people in the occupied territories.

If Carter's book can begin the process of the U.S. resuming a balanced and fair-handed approach to Israel and Palestine, then he should get another Nobel Peace Prize.

[DianeG5385]

6. I second that emotion

It's hard to watch Palestinians suffer and to watch Iraqis suffer as well

[everythingsxen]

7. Is that sort of like...

President Bush saying "We must stop the killers who attacked us on 9/11 and Iraq is a dangerous country." ?

[Tom Joad]

11. In what way?

Not sure who you are responding to or what your point is.

[everythingsxen]

12. I am responding to the person I replied to

and the link between Iraq and Palestine. Not that the two situations are not tragic, in their own ways.

[Lithos]

13. A quote by Dr. Konner

"It is just as futile to get someone to give up using their ears, or love other children as much as their own... Religion fills very basic human needs."
- Mel Konner, ecologist, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia

[everythingsxen]

33. I am curious Sir, why you chose that quote

What bearing does it have on the thread?

[Lithos]

36. See 35, answered in the wrong place

L-

[Lithos]

35. It struck me as appropriate

You can read it on several levels with several different spins (taken variantly) and it still is relevant to both men.

L-

[everythingsxen]

37. When you say it is relevant to Dr. Konner,

how does it apply to him? I mean beyond his belief that religion is a fundamental part of the human condition.

I suppose I am missing the connection, the quote does not give me any greater insight to either Carter or Konner, other than as I said, Konner believes that religion is a part of the human condition. :shrug:

[Lithos]

39. Dr Konner is an ethnologist

And I believe has remarked favorably in the past on Rousseau's Social Contract. The portion of which I was thinking goes something like:

THE most ancient of all societies, and the only one that is natural, is the family: and even so the children remain attached to the father only so long as they need him for their preservation. As soon as this need ceases, the natural bond is dissolved. The children, released from the obedience they owed to the father, and the father, released from the care he owed his children, return equally to independence. If they remain united, they continue so no longer naturally, but voluntarily; and the family itself is then maintained only by convention.

This common liberty results from the nature of man. His first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes to himself; and, as soon as he reaches years of discretion, he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself, and consequently becomes his own master.

The family then may be called the first model of political societies: the ruler corresponds to the father, and the people to the children; and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for their own advantage. The whole difference is that, in the family, the love of the father for his children repays him for the care he takes of them, while, in the State, the pleasure of commanding takes the place of the love which the chief cannot have for the peoples under him.

Add to this the Carter's notion of the Blood/Children of Abraham and the book along those lines as well as his identification with Palestinian Christians (and by extension the Muslims) in his new book, and Dr. Konner's own work discussion how the children of the diaspora succeeded very well because of their commitment to God and Torah, then you see how the comment helps reflect the paths both men take in their view.

L-

[everythingsxen]

40. It just adds more questions for me

As all of the sites I seem to be finding about Dr. Konner say he is an atheist personally, which is why I found the quote so odd.

[Lithos]

44. Religion is pretty hard to define

Atheism is a religion in the sense it has a statement about a god (a denial) and self-identification and placement of this self in the world. While Dr. Konner does not believe in the supernatural or mystical elements, he definitely identifies himself as both a Scientist and as Jewish. His last book on Unsettled Jews definitely appears to have a strong personal touch as the research had to undoubtedly be extensive and difficult. The great reviews including several peer reviews indicates he did quite well in his efforts; I have added it to my list of books to buy.

While neither man has addressed each other directly, there has only been the one sided comment by Dr. Konner, my opinion is that both Dr. Konner and President Carter are suffering from a bit of myopia. Both see the good in their children and are pained by what they see as omissions being made and which they are both trying passionately to address.

Unlike many here, I've read Carter's book. I do not think he's being anti-Semitic and he does show some significant injustice, but I do understand complaints about omissions as Carter did not do a very good job of showing the sins of his children as well.

L-

[earthlover]

14. The article does not speak for all Jewish-Americans

From the article: "How ironic, then, that Jewish-Americans are embroiled in a grim struggle against a Christian former president who is tainting our holiday joy".

All I can say to this is speak for yourself! It sounds like the writer of the article indeed is embroiled in a grim struggle against a Christian former president. Whether Jewish-Americans as a whole join the writer is another story, and rather doubtful.

There is a mean-spirited tone to the article. This is the attitude that is "tainting our holiday joy" in my view.

[msmcghee]

16. I thought I'd offer here some sage advice for Carter . .

. . as was offered by a statesman and a popular American politician. Can you guess who it was?

a) I would not recognize the Palestinians as a political entity—nor their leaders—until after those leaders had first recognized Israel’s right to exist.

b) I would not recognize the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PLO, nor their leaders under any circumstances, diplomatically, until they recognize the right of Israel to exist in peace in their present location in the Far East—in the Middle East.

c) I think the world should know, and I think the President of the United States and the Secretary of State of the future can explain, that the Palestinian problem did not originate because of Israel, that this is a long-standing problem whose complexity has been created to a substantial degree by the nations who surround it and who now blame the Palestinian problem on Israel itself.

Sound familiar? These statements were made by James Earl Carter when he was running for president himself.

For citations,

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2006/12/carters_ideas_face_refutations_1.html#more

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. the PLO did recognize Israel as an official position in 1988

it was actually their unofficial position long before that.

http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentlesson4.html

To this day Israel has never officially or unofficially recognized the right of Palestine to exist.

[msmcghee]

26. That has nothing to do with my post referencing . .

. . Carter's words on the topic when he was running for office.

However, while technically you are correct, history has shown Arafat's grudging declaration to be a tactical maneuver.

**********************************

(snip)

When the United States denied Arafat a visa, the UN General Assembly voted to meet in Geneva, Switzerland. Arafat secretly pledged to the United States that he would fulfill its conditions in his December 13, 1988 address. But Arafat broke this promise and the United States found his statement unsatisfactory. To avoid losing the opportunity, Arafat went further at a press conference the next day, saying, "Our desire for peace is strategic and not a temporary tactic." He went down the checklist:

* The PLO accepted UN Resolution 242

* The PLO promised recognition of Israel

* The PLO renounced terrorism

Arafat concluded:

* We want peace...we are committed to peace, and we want to live in our Palestinian state and let others live.

Responding to the PLO's public pledges of this policy change, Shultz quickly announced that the US conditions were met and a US-PLO dialogue began in Tunis. Those talks ultimately led to the 1991 Madrid Conference.

There was a working assumption in the United States that Arafat's declaration of December 1988, in which he grudgingly recognized Israel and renounced terrorism, signified a long-term change PLO policy, and was not just tactical. Yet the inflamed rhetoric and violent activities of the PLO continued while Arafat talked peace. The US government was very reluctant to publically denounce the PLO for this duplicity lest the hard-won peace process be derailed. This US unwillingness to confront PLO reality had the effect of putting Israel on the defensive. Israeli actions to fight PLO terror could not be seen in proper context while the US refused to acknowledge the PLO's terrorism as producing the defensive Israeli action.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_plo_israel_exist_1988.php

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. and Israel continued settlement expansion, bull-dozing houses, confiscating

land and resources and jailing and torturing thousands of Palestinian prisoners.

When finally Israel relented in 1993 and signed the Oslo Accord in September 1993, Israel then embarked on the largest settlement expansion and land confiscations program in its history.

[msmcghee]

30. And neither does this. n/t

[Englander]

50. Question for msmcgmee -

Have you actually read the Carter book?

Here's an excerpt, if the answer's no...

Excerpt: Carter's 'Palestine Peace Not Apartheid'
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=2680021&page=1

[msmcghee]

55. My purpose in offering the quotes from Carter . .

. . was to show that at other times he had conclusions that were somewhat different from what he says now in his book (at least from those excerpts that I have read).

My purpose was not to engage the discussion substantively as I have not read the book - and others here, more knowledgeable than me, seem to be fully engaged on it.

My comment was just a side note that I thought was interesting and might add a small amount of additional perspective. For now, I prefer to read others' comments and learn what I can. I might read the book some day but right now I am working on two others. I'd probably be more inclined to read it if Carter were to offer some reasonable rebuttal to Alan Dershowitz' very politely stated but substantive criticicms that he posted on HuffPo recently.

"The World According to Jimmy Carter"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-world-according-to-ji_b_34702.html

[furman]

17. This article is right on the money

This is an excellent commentary. Thank you for posting it.

Some more quotes directly from the article.

Carter calls the Hamas leaders men of peace, a claim that flies in the face of every known reality.

He (Carter) has become an apologist for terrorists.

He (Carter) has said or hinted repeatedly that Jews control the Congress and the media, a classic anti-Semitic slur.

At a minimum, his (Carter's) legacy is irrevocably tarnished, and he will never again be a factor in the quest for Middle East peace. At worst, he is emboldening terrorists and their apologists in the Arab world, encouraging them to go on with their terror campaign and refuse even to recognize Israel's right to just exist.


The Jewish community would not be as hostile about the book if it was at least historically accurate.
However, this book is filled with lies and turns truth on its head.
The book flies in the face of reality, is riddled with historical errors noted by several reviewers,
and many of you still hold it in such high esteem. A real shame.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. So any US-Jew who agrees with Carter isn't part of the "Jewish Community"?

From the article: "How ironic, then, that Jewish-Americans are embroiled in a grim struggle against a Christian former president who is tainting our holiday joy".

Yr comment: "The Jewish community would not be as hostile about the book if it was at least historically accurate."

Btw, have you even bothered to read the book?

[everythingsxen]

27. I don't recall reading in the article or

in furman's post that as you put it any US-Jew who agrees with Carter isn't part of the "Jewish Community"; I would say that there are percentages of all communities that disagree with the majority.

As a personal side note, it's so nice to see you either took me off ignore or never put me on ignore after saying you were going to. :hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Try reading my post again...

It's pretty damn clear. Maybe you could explain exactly what yr not seeing and why yr not seeing it?

I'll make this even easier for you:

From the article: "How ironic, then, that Jewish-Americans are embroiled in a grim struggle against a Christian former president who is tainting our holiday joy".

Furman's comment: "The Jewish community would not be as hostile about the book if it was at least historically accurate."


btw, I forgot to put you on ignore. Not sure why it's such a big deal for you, seeing it's got nothing to do with this thread at all...

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[everythingsxen]

38. Take two:

Neither furman nor the author of the article has said that all Jewish people disagree with Carter. However a majority do, thus why "the Jewish Community" is referenced. This is called a "generalization".

Your argument is a "straw man"; you have invented the position of furman and the author by trying to argue that what they are saying is "those who agree with Carter are not part of the community".

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Try reading the article. This is what the author said...

"How ironic, then, that Jewish-Americans are embroiled in a grim struggle against a Christian former president who is tainting our holiday joy".

Furman said the article was right on the money, and made a comment about the Jewish community being hostile to Carter's book: "The Jewish community would not be as hostile about the book if it was at least historically accurate."

Which is why I ASKED 'So any US-Jew who agrees with Carter isn't part of the "Jewish Community"?'

Seeing as how I asked another poster a question, how do you turn that into arguing a position??

[everythingsxen]

42. Except of course....

Neither the OP nor furman make any mention of any/all Jews being included in "the Jewish Community". Therefore your question is a straw man, because it implies something that was never there before you posted it.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Well, thanks for admitting yr wrong...

Suddenly yr admitting that my question was actually a question and not an argument. No, if you take the time to READ the comments from the author, furman and me, you'd spot that it's not a strawman. I'm not sure how much more it can be dumbed down, but I'm more than willing to sit here trying until you do grasp it...

on edit: actually, seeing I asked furman a question and I'm interested in their reply, I honestly don't give a toss whether you grasp it or not, nor that you appear to have a problem with me asking another poster a question....

[everythingsxen]

45. The only one who is having difficulty grasping anything in this

seems to be you. Though you seem to be grasping at straws quite nicely.

You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that nowhere in the OP or furman's post does it say anything about "the Jewish Community" including ALL Jews. That is why your question is a strawman. A pity you are unable to grasp the fundamentals of what a strawman is, given your propensity for using them.

In case you can't open the link:

Examples of Straw Man

1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
   Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
   Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
   Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
   Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."
   
   
2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
   
   
3. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
   Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
   Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
   Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

Example #3 is a pretty good mirror of your STRAW MAN that ANY US-Jews agreeing with Carter are not part of the Jewish Community.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I'll explain in great detail why I asked furman my question...

I expect given yr responses in this and other threads that it's a waste of keyboard strokes, but for anyone who's allowed themselves to be drawn into the silliness of the past few posts, I'll give it a nice, slow join-the-dots explanation.


1) As I've stated many times the author of the article made a comment expressing his belief that all US-Jews feel the same as him: "How ironic, then, that Jewish-Americans are embroiled in a grim struggle against a Christian former president who is tainting our holiday joy".

2. Furman posts a response to the OP titled "This article is right on the money" and goes on to say: "The Jewish community would not be as hostile about the book if it was at least historically accurate."

3. As Furman expressed his opinion that the article was right on the money, it's safe to assume he agreed with the author's comment about how 'Jewish-Americans are embroiled in a grim struggle against a Christian former president' blah blah. As Furman goes on to say that the Jewish community is hostile to Carter's book, my question: 'So any US-Jew who agrees with Carter isn't part of the "Jewish Community"?' And it's a question I'd like Furman, not you, to answer. There are many US-Jews who aren't hostile to Jimmy Carter and I'd like to know if Furman considers them part of this 'Jewish community' he talks about. There's nothing of a straw-man nature about it, btw...

[everythingsxen]

47. The fact that you are unable to see it is a strawman....

I will go real slow and connect the dots.

1) As I've stated many times the author of the article made a comment expressing his belief that all US-Jews feel the same as him: "How ironic, then, that Jewish-Americans are embroiled in a grim struggle against a Christian former president who is tainting our holiday joy".

He DOES NOT say ALL. That is a word YOU are adding to the equation. That is the "inventing your opponents position" part of a strawman. He says "...Jewish-Americans are..." he gives no numbers or expectations of numbers, but given the number of Jewish people who have expressed anger over Carter's book it is a logical deduction that a majority of Jewish-Americans agree, but he does not say all. You have inserted the word all into the equation.

2. Furman posts a response to the OP titled "This article is right on the money" and goes on to say: "The Jewish community would not be as hostile about the book if it was at least historically accurate."

Given that the OP never said all as is easily demonstrated by the fact that, here in the real world, the article does not say all, furman's agreement with it and subsequent "Jewish Community" comment can be viewed in the same light. Community is hardly an all encompassing word and there is little evidence that all Jews agree on any given situation.

3. As Furman expressed his opinion that the article was right on the money, it's safe to assume he agreed with the author's comment about how 'Jewish-Americans are embroiled in a grim struggle against a Christian former president' blah blah. As Furman goes on to say that the Jewish community is hostile to Carter's book, my question: 'So any US-Jew who agrees with Carter isn't part of the "Jewish Community"?' And it's a question I'd like Furman, not you, to answer. There are many US-Jews who aren't hostile to Jimmy Carter and I'd like to know if Furman considers them part of this 'Jewish community' he talks about. There's nothing of a straw-man nature about it, btw...

As I just outlined above, you have inserted the concept that both furman and the author are talking about ALL American-Jews, when that claim has absolutely no resemblance on reality. furman is still free to answer your question, which is still a strawman.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Go back and read my post again and again till you get it...

1) He was speaking on behalf of all US Jews and attempting to claim he wasn't is pretty desperate and pathetic. Other posters in this thread have pointed out that he was trying to speak on behalf of all American Jews. There are examples all over DU where the word 'all' is not required in front of something to know that all members of a group are being talked about. If you insist on returning and posting the same thing over and over, I can start bringing up examples and seeing if you think that not having an 'all' in front of them didn't mean an entire group wasn't being talked about..

2) Go back and read my last post again.

3) I asked Furman a question. Yr not Furman, are you??

4) Go back and read my last post again.

5) Repeat steps 1 through 5 another few times...

[furman]

60. I'm furman, and I'll answer your question

Just as everythingsxen explained so well, I was referring to the majority of the Jewish community.

There are of course Jewish people who undoubtedly take positions similar to Carter and laud his book.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. So you weren't actually saying the Jewish community was hostile to Carter...

Gotcha. I'll remember to read between the lines next time and know that when references are made to the Jewish community, or maybe even Palestinian society, they're not talking about the entire community or society ;)

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[furman]

18. Related article: Emory professor urges center to cut ties with Carter

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2006/12/21/1222metcarter.html

Emory professor urges center to cut ties with Carter
By ERNIE SUGGS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 12/22/06

A noted Emory University anthropologist is calling for the Carter Center to distance itself from its namesake in the wake of the former president's latest book and recent comments about Israel.

Writing to Carter Center Executive Director John Hardman to decline a position on an advisory panel, Melvin Konner also offered a piece of advice.

"If you want The Carter Center to survive and thrive independently in the future, you must take prompt and decisive steps to separate the center from President Carter's now irrevocably tarnished legacy," wrote Konner, adding that the center has to make it clear that, on matters of the Middle East and the Jewish community, Carter does not speak for the institution.

"If you do not do this, then President Carter's damage to his own effectiveness as a mediator, not to mention to his reputation and legacy, will extend, far more tragically in my view, to The Carter Center and all its activities," wrote Konner, the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Anthropology at Emory and the author of "Unsettled: An Anthropology of the Jews."

...

"This rigidity of thought and complete failure to engage criticisms from much greater experts than me about his numerous and serious errors of commission and omission make it clear to me that an attempt by me to advise him would be pointless and counterproductive," Konner said.

...

[ShortnFiery]

59. "So any US-Jew who agrees with Carter isn't part of the 'Jewish Community'?"

The foregoing says it all. Have we as a nation and our arrogant push for only "Judeo-Christian" fundamentals turned us into what we originally fought against? Because of our great wealth and military might are we (USA and Israeli Governments) now the INVADERS most feared by the World Communities?

[wellst0nev0ter]

62. Is the timeline about Middle East history

or is it a timeline of Jewish History. If it's the first, then Jimmy Carter didn't do anything wrong and the author is talking out of his ass. If it's the second, the Carter has some 'splaining to do.