Carter and Terrorism
Jimmy Carter, who claims he wrote his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, to improve the prospects for peace in the Middle East, has become a barrier to peace himself.
Recently, he urged the Palestinian leadership to reject an offer by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and a similar plan last week by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, to establish a Palestinian state with provisional borders to be finally negotiated in the near future.
Instead of encouraging the Palestinians to seize on these proposals as a starting point, leading to a solution whose basic elements are common cause among moderates on both sides, Carter has chosen to echo the rhetoric of the rejectionists:
“It is inconceivable that any Palestinian, Arab leader, or any objective member of the international community could accept this illegal action as a permanent solution to the continuing altercation in the Middle East,” he wrote of Olmert’s plan last year in USA Today. (1)
Carter has, in effect, told Palestinian radicals to continue to do what they are doing: mainly to terrorize Jewish civilians and then whine to the world about Israeli responses to terrorism.
In his book, Carter even justifies continuing Palestinian terrorism until “the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.”(2)
Putting aside the fact that Israel has long accepted the goals of the Roadmap, Carter’s statement is being widely understood by advocates of Palestinian terrorism as a justification for its continuation.
That is why Carter’s words—in his book and in subsequent interviews—are being featured on radical Islamic and neo-Nazi hate sites around the world, (3) and being praised by hard left supporters of terrorism like Alexander Cockburn and Norman Finkelstein.
Cockburn crowed: “Carter's book soars higher and higher on the best-seller lists, reaching No. 4 at one point on Amazon itself.” (4)
Yet it was Cockburn himself who described Carter as “a white male American with the blood of thousands on his hands” when the former President won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.(5)
Even Finkelstein has been forced to admit that “the historical chapters of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid are rather thin, filled with errors small and large, as well as tendentious and untenable interpretations.” (6)
Yet for these professional Israel-haters, Carter’s apparent endorsement of Palestinian terror absolves him of all other sins.
In a recent interview on Al-Jazeera about his book, Carter specifically refused to include rocket attacks that target Israeli children, women and other civilians as “terrorism”: "I don't really consider... I wasn't equating the Palestinian missiles with terrorism." (7)
Moreover, he refused even to condemn on moral grounds suicide bombings on public buses packed with women and children, limiting himself to criticizing these on tactical and public relations grounds.
He also suggested a moral equivalence between the deliberate targeting of Israeli children by terrorists and the accidental killing of children (some of whom are 17-year-old terrorists) by the Israeli Defense Force in their legitimate efforts to stop terrorism. (8)
What kind of message does this send? It sends a pernicious message of approval to Palestinian terrorists to persist, in the expectation that they will continue to receive the support of people like Carter and those who cite him with approval.
Rarely has a Nobel Peace Prize winner done so much to discourage peace and compromise and to encourage continuing terrorism and violence.
His decision to use the word “apartheid” is proof in itself that he wants to demonize Israel and to give comfort to the radicals who prefer isolation to negotiation.
Nowhere in Carter’s book is there any consideration of what the word “apartheid” actually means. And never does Carter criticize the “apartheid” policies of Arab states like Lebanon, where Palestinians are denied many basic rights—to say nothing of his patron Saudi Arabia, where women and non-Muslims are the targets of severe discrimination.
Carter also forgets his own hesitation on apartheid in South Africa. Though he did more than any of his predecessors to stand up to South Africa’s white minority government, the Carter administration protected South Africa at the United Nations by vetoing three UN Security Council resolutions condemning the apartheid regime and calling for broad economic sanctions. (9)
Inevitably, a leader who makes unfounded accusations invites close scrutiny of his own human rights record. And as President, Carter often failed to live up to the human rights standards by which he purports to judge Israel (and only Israel) today.
For example, President Carter recognized the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia after it had been deposed in 1979 and after Pol Pot had killed millions of his own countrymen. (10)
In 1977, President Carter authorized a massive increase in military aid to Indonesia, including aircraft, barely two years after Indonesia invaded East Timor. (11) Amnesty International reports that “200,000 people, one third of the population, were killed or died of starvation or disease” in East Timor in the years after the invasion. (12)
In 1979, reversing its previous policy, the Carter administration began expanding military aid and allowing greater arms sales to Morocco, allowing Morocco to tighten its hold on Western Sahara, which it had annexed in 1975 and which it still occupies to this day. (13)
And it was President Carter who used Saudi Arabia to help arm the mujahideen in Afghanistan, many of whom later formed the core of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda: “We channeled assistance for those freedom fighters through Saudi Arabia, through Egypt and other places,” he recently admitted. (14)
Carter’s decision to condone Palestinian terror shines a harsh light on his own human rights failures.
I was hoping to question Carter about his position today (Tues., Jan. 23) when he speaks at Brandeis University. I was going to ask him whether it is true that in addition to discouraging the Palestinian leadership from accepting Olmert’s proposals, he also discouraged the late Yasser Arafat from accepting the Clinton-Barak offer of statehood in 2000-2001.
“There was no possibility that any Palestinian leader could accept such terms and survive,” he claims in his book. (15) The world should know whether Carter actually gave Arafat that advice.
After all, he has justified Arafat’s actions at Camp David and Taba—walking away without making a counter-offer—and has chosen to believe Arafat’s mendacious account over the truthful and documented accounts of President Clinton, Dennis Ross and Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia—all of whom place the blame on Arafat.
The irony, of course, is that if Arafat had accepted the Clinton-Barak offer, or come back with a counter-offer, there would have been no intifada and no “apartheid”; better yet, there would have been peace and a Palestinian state. What was Carter’s position at that time? Is it different from the one he has taken now?
I won’t get to ask him those or any other question because Carter, who claims he wrote his book to stimulate a “debate,” refuses to debate! But I have been invited by a student group to offer a rebuttal to Carter’s Brandeis speech, and I will do so. I invite Carter to stay and listen to my rebuttal and to respond to it. I will have a chair on the stage for him.
Carter’s book, and his subsequent statements, raise many questions. I hope he will have the decency to answer them, rather than evading them, as he has done up until now.
***************************
1 Carter, Jimmy. “Israel’s New Plan: A Land Grab.” USA Today (May 15 2006) [Online article]. URL: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-05-15-carter-israel-edit_x.htm
2 Carter, Jimmy. Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006. 213.
3 Anti-Defamation League. “Anti-Semites, White Supremacists Exploit Jimmy Carter’s Book for Propaganda Value.” Press release (Jan. 4 2007) [Online document]. URL: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4955_13.htm
4 Cockburn, Alexander. “Get Carter; Iran, Too.” Creators.com (20 Jan. 2007) [Online article]. URL: http://www.creators.com/opinion/alexander-cockburn.html
5 Cockburn, Alexander. “Vindication Through Violence: Jimmy Carter and the DC Sniper.” Counterpunch (Oct. 12 2002) [Online article]. URL: http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn1012.html
6 Finkelstein, Norman. “Jimmy Carter’s Roadmap.” Counterpunch (Nov. 13 2006) [Online article]. URL: http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein11132006.html
7 Carter, Jimmy. Interview on Al-Jazeera (Jan. 14 2007). Trans. MEMRI TV [Online transcript]. URL: http://www.memritv.org. Note that the MEMRI translation omits the word “really,” which can be dimly heard beneath the Arabic voice-over.
8 Ibid.
9 Patil, Anjali V. The UN Veto in World Affairs 1946-1990: A Complete Record and Case Histories of the Security Council’s Veto. Sarasota: UNIFO, 1992. 148-52
10 PBS. “Chronicle of Survival.” [Online article]. URL: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/cambodia/tl04.html
11 East Timor Action Network. “Timorese Protest at July 4 Part at U.S. Mission.” Press release (Jul. 4 2000) [Online article]. URL: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0007/S00012.htm
12 Amnesty International. “Power and Impunity”: Human rights under the new order. Extract. Amnesty International (Sep. 1994). [Online article]. URL: http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/indopub/indoint.htm
13 Wenger, Martha. “Reagan Stakes Morocco in Sahara Struggle.” MERIP Reports No. 105 (May 1982). 24
14 Carter, James. “The United States and China: A President’s Perspective.” Inaugural Oksenberg Lecture, Stanford University (May 6 2002). [Online text]. URL: www.cartercenter.org/documents/1041.doc
15 Carter 2006, 152
Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. His most recent book is Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways (Norton, 2006)
Join the conversation and read Alan Dershowitz' exclusive six part series "Ex-President for Sale" on Gather at alandershowitz.gather.com
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 318
There will be no solution until man evolves further.
It is amazing how we the Jews list Carter. When we regularly paid him and the money was good this is what he used to say:
I am opposed to an independent Palestinian state, because in my own judgement and in the judgement of many leaders in the Middle East, including Arab leaders, this would be a destabilizing factor in the Middle East and would certainly not serve the United States interests. (Jimmy Carter at the United Jewish Appeal National Young Leadership Conference, February 25, 1980).
———-
…we oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The United States, as all of you know, has a warm and unique relationship of friendship with Israel that is morally right. It is compatible with our deepest religious convictions, and it is right in terms of America's own strategic interests. We are committed to Israel's security, prosperity, and future as a land that has so much to offer to the world. A strong Israel and a strong Egypt serve our own security interests.We are committed to Israel's right to live in peace with all its neighbors, within secure and recognized borders, free from terrorism. We are committed to a Jerusalem that will forever remain undivided with free access to all faiths to the holy places. Nothing will deflect us from these fundamental principles and committments. (Source: First anniversary of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty / White House joint conference, March 23, 1980).
Now, since he left we left Saudis to handle him solely. How AIPAC dropped the ball is beyond my understanding. Louzy $ 30,000,000. This is "peanuts" for us...
To drop a friends like this for lousy $30,000,000 this is a shame. No wander all those goyim say we are stingy. They might be right.
AIPAC if you read this, please handle Bush better after he retires. Get him some Jewish money to build his library, so Saudis don't outbid us, please...
You are right regarding Carter Nazi attitude. Not only he wanted to help an SS man, he is the one who now called Holocoust as " so called Holocoust " I am not surprised if he is a closet Holocoust denier. Just watch this clip:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/01/jimmy-carter-speaks-on-wwii-so-called.html
This is the proper link:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/01/jimmy-carter-speaks-on-wwii-so-called.html
And weren't you friendly with President Carter for over thirty years UNTIL he wrote this book condemning Israel?
do we perhaps detect a bit of hypocrisy here?
and STILL not one rebuttal of one of the basic premises of the book; that in America the pro-Israeli lobby shuts out any rational retelling of the story.
you have poisoned your own well sir.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/01/jimmy-carter-speaks-
on-wwii-so-called.html
It makes a lots of sense. As you can see from my previous posts, Carter used to be pretty reasonable... Against Palestinian State, Undevided Jerusalem.. He said that Palestinian State is against American interests, etc.
But after he was defeated by American people, he started to blame Jews and hooked up with Saudis against America and Israel.
You can see clearly, that he changed 180 degrees. So it is not Dershowitz who changed but rather Carter. We also see that he is very uncomfortable to admit that he works for Saudis. Does it makes sense to you?
In fact the opposite is true . The Saudi Lobbi doesn't want you to know about millions of dollars that DOCUMENTED and shown Carter was bought with.
The truth must be told. Carter is a promoter of Arab interests, nothing less.
http://www.nysun.com/article/43958
In addition, if the pro-Israeli "lobby" is so powerful as to shut out debate why is it that Carter's arguments as well as those of M&W have been so widely reprinted in the public press and why have they had so much air time on talk shows? Either the "lobby" controls the networks and the press, and Carter's comments haven't seen the light of day, or Carter has had extensive publicity and the "lobby" does not control. You can't have it both ways.
Either the "Jews" have stopped Carter from appearing at Jewish-sponsored universities, or he's speaking at Brandeis tomorrow. Again, you can't have it both ways.
Carter claimed he would debate anyone, then refused to debate Dershowitz and next repeated his claim that he'd debate anyone, thus making him a bald-faced liar out of his own mouth.. It is Carter who is attempting to stop debate, not his critics.
http://www.itshinesforall.com/2007/01/exclusive_note.html
You Mr D. say:
In a recent interview on Al-Jazeera about his book, Carter specifically refused to include rocket attacks that target Israeli children, women and other civilians as "terrorism": "I don't really consider... I wasn't equating the Palestinian missiles with terrorism."
Could it just be that he was equating the missile attacks with the little war that Israel began up north ? Maybe a little token retaliation for just cause.
You say:
his patron Saudi Arabia, where women and non-Muslims are the targets of severe discrimination.
And now Saudi Arabia 'belongs' to Carter and NOT the Bush's ... get real man.
Your entire series of articles show you to be what you are, a slanderer and Jewish apologist of the typical kind ... doing anything you see fit to discredit any one that could be perceived as any kind of threat to your own ideas ... and the usual crowd of tag along apologists you have supporting you on Gather must be typical also ... how sad !
Jimmy was a lousy President but he has done more to better the world than you will ever do. You are a one note Charlie that can't see past his own PR.
From the paper "Lying in Islam" at http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.shtml
"Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.
"In the sphere of international politics, the question is: Can Muslim countries be trusted to keep their end of the agreements that they sign with non-Muslim nations? It is a known Islamic practice, that when Muslims are weak they can agree with most anything. Once they become strong, then they negate what they formerly vowed.
"The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to polish Islam's image and make it more attractive to prospective converts. They carefully try to avoid, obscure, and omit mentioning any of the negative Islamic texts and teachings.
"An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Quran from the early part of Mohammed's ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers
"In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts."
Jimmy was a lousy President but he has done more to better the world than you will ever do. You are a one note Charlie that can't see past his own PR.<<<<br>
I agree- Carter was a lousy president. I think you are too pessimistic about Dershowitz. I don't think he can kiss enough asses to get a Nobel, but I would argue he is pretty good at what he does...
As to Carter, he can win another Nobel as far as I concerned. He still the worst president who is responsible for Iran nightmare. He is a miserable coward who will never confront the truth.
you do realize that your hysterical rants are doing exactly what Gather and its recent partner Simon & Schuster want- selling more books. It's currently one of their top-selling books.
you can talk about trotsky stalin with impunity-
anyone talks about- nazism or is anti-jewish is demonized or thrown in prison in europe
you- are creating your own problems- once again
When Israel was destroyed by the Romans, the Jews were scattered with no place to call home. After WWII they were once again given Israel as their home land. This made the Jewish community very happy since they once again had a place to call home and could speak as one voice and be recognized and respected. That's pretty much all anyone wants. The problem is that the Palestinians had already been living in Israel for quite some time. I don't know the exact length but I'm sure it's safe to guess at well over a thousand years. So when Israel became a Jewish state once more, the Palestinians were in effect kicked out of their home land. Any one remember the tent cities back in the late 70's early 80's?
The Palestinians are now in the same spot as the Jews found themselves when they had no home to call their own. The difference is that in this day and age when we can communicate around the world, the Palestinians decided to fight to keep what was theirs for so long. This doesn't mean that either side is right or wrong. Rather it speaks to the arrogant incompetence of the allies at the end of the war. They didn't take the people of the middle east into consideration when they re-drew the boarders. 70% of what was once Palestine now belongs to Jordan. Interestingly enough I haven't seen the king of Jordan offering up any land to help his Muslim Palestinian brothers and sisters.
Both groups of people simply want to be recognized, heard, and acknowledged as sovereign people. And they both have legitimate complaints in this regard. The Jews, after centuries of being scattered around the world finally have a home of their own again. And they want to keep it. The Palestinians lost their home, and they want it back. Neither group wishes to live under the government of the other for fear of loosing their cultural identity. The problem could be solved easily enough if the countries surrounding Israel would agree to give up a little more land so that there was enough territory to form two states kind of like east and west Germany used to be.
When it comes to the holy sites we really should not be fighting about who owns them. All of the holy sites belong to God after all right? An ideal solution would be to form a "virtual" government to preside over the holy sites in the contested area. The virtual government should be made up of disinterested parties. No Jews and no Muslims. The sole role of that virtual government would be to maintain the holy sites and provide security. It's sad because I know that neither side would be able to this job because of biased opinions. The Dome of the Rock for example. It's my understanding that the Dome sits atop the temple of Solomon. And why shouldn't it? What better place for a prophet of God to ascend into heaven than at the gates of the Earthly house of God? But neither of the two factions see it that way. Take the holy sites out of the equation and the matter is simply one of living space and sovereign governments for each group. You could have two separate governments for both people in the same territory but that would be apartheid wouldn't it? It's a shame. All three of the great faiths that spring from that area teach about the transience of material possessions, and yet we kill each other over them ignoring the admonitions of our great teachers. If both Jews and Muslims love God so much. Then they have the burden to prove how much they love God, by cooperating with each other. Those who desire only conflict and bloodshed are not at all true Jews, Christians, or Muslims, no matter WHAT line of crap they try to feed you. You should bring the WISEST of your groups to the negotiating table, not the smartest or worldliest.
On that note, I am disgusted that the leadership at Gather feels that such a blatantly one-sided presentation deserves the prominence they are giving it. Yet another reason to be disinclined to participate...
Israeli policy is about exclusion and power as well as security, not a simple matter of self-defense. While many Israelis are truly working for peace, men like Ariel Sharon have always stood in the way of it. They care as little for the innocent as the terrorists.
The 'Rom' addressing me above is a generated account used only to support this series of articles. It has one image posted, (after I highlighted that on one of the other shills), and is only commenting about Dr. D.'s articles about President Carter.
When I worked with the Carnies as a kid these were known as 'shills' or planted support in the crowd to get the mases to go along with whatever was being bilked out of them. In this case slander.
For an informed review of Mr Carters lack of consistancy. We need leaders to promote peace not former leaders promoting Terrorism. Carter is his own worst enemy, and I am afraid he has gone over the edge at this point, such that I do not expect him to correct his behavior or his thinking.
Thank you.
Gather, this entire series is pointless and quite beneath you. I will not be reading any more of it, and I can't imagine anyone not already in agreement with Dershowitz will either. This whole series makes Rush Limbaugh look subtle and balanced by comparison.
For anyone who actually wants to hear a discussion of the issues, not a one-sided rant, I recommend these articles from Democracy Now - and please spare me the responses of "They're biased against Israeli!!!" Regardless of anyone's view of their "bias" at least they present articulate, well informed opinions on different sides of this issue.
The middle link is an interview with Carter about this book:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/08/1414201&mode=thread&tid=25
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/30/1452225&mode=thread&tid=25
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/28/1454248&mode=thread&tid=25
http://afgen.com/trilateral.html
"It makes a lots of sense. As you can see from my previous posts, Carter used to be pretty reasonable... Against Palestinian State, Undevided Jerusalem.. He said that Palestinian State is against American interests, etc. "
Ah... being against a Palestinian state and a divided Jerusalem makes one "pretty reasonable" - nice example of the fair and balanced opinions predominating on this page.
Also, I think what this page needs are a few more posts linking Carter to Nazis... you know, just to keep the discussion elevated.
How do I know? Hmmmmmm.....
I know that only the Feminine can bring back Harmonious Order to the rogue-patriarchal colonies.
I know that I and a great many others working with Feminine Power are feeling the SURGE of the arising Mother.
There's an awful lot of humming and buzzing of a great many eager drones, in this commentary, and all over the planet......
SHE is not likely to mate with one who can only think patriarchally, though.
Look over these comments above and in the other Dershowitz articles, and you won't find, yet, many who are actually capable of relating in a sane/harmonious way with Feminine consciousness...
Never mind ( really, I mean "never INTELLECT" - or "I hope you are soon released from the solitary confinement of ego-intellect domination)........
Never intellect, ALWAYS HEARTMIND.
A book which describes the living conditions and future potential of the people residing adjacent to and within the expanding borders of Israel is sympathetic to their plight. Its author, Jimy Carter, has no axe to grind for Palestinians per se. The investment in the research and activism in addressing such issues is not directly correlated to the receipt of funds from any source and to attempt to impugn those contributions as such is, somehow, reminiscent of some of Goebbles' propaganda efforts to justify 'attitude adjustment'. Perhaps Carter's sidebar of concern that opposing views might be pretty well organized was not ill conceived.
Personally, I don't seriously question whether Carter is describing the conditions of people in Palestine accurately. From the few news stories and limited media 'events picturing the situation, things don't appear to have a holiday character. Certainly the infrastructure and environment displayed offers a marked contrast to the suffering of the Palestinians' neighbors.
Further, I read Carter's public statements to suggest that his motivations may be directed more at opening debate within Israel and the United States regarding the goals, justifications and methods being used on the ground in the expanding Israel than they are to engage Alan Dershowitz in a public forum for a 'game' of oneupsmanship.
Accusations are worthless but continued discussion and contemplation offer hope. I am hard pressed to ascribe 'payback' for donations as representative of the way this man has worked for the past four decades or more. Our discussion reflects our biases far more than our ability to evaluate.
Why Jimmy Carter ran for governor of Georgia and what he accomplished there is telling as to why he ran for President and what he tried to accomplish in Washington. How he was marginalized by Congressional forces, economic interests and media interpretation contributed to the unfortunate legacy he has carried with grace. That he continues to strive in such a poisoned vinyard in the interest of others is a tribute to the reality of the humanity he lives.
But for us, perhaps it would be more valuable to follow his lead. Let's talk about whether the situation in Israel/Palestine is a boon to mankind or a prescription for disaster rather than gather to debate whose money covers the check.
"His decision to use the word "apartheid" is proof in itself that he wants to demonize Israel and to give comfort to the radicals who prefer isolation to negotiation."
"For example, in defending his asking for special consideration for a Nazi murderer of Jews, he can always say "I didn't know." Whether we believe him or not, what is needed here is the same solution many have advocated for the Middle East--massive discrediting and defeat of the opposing side, not scoring points. "
"As Netanyahu recently said, this conflict will not end until they love their children more than they hate us. I find that logic hard to argue with when you see children with bombs strapped across their chests and sent in to a crowded marketplace to fight the infidels. "
"To drop a friends like this for lousy $30,000,000 this is a shame. No wander all those goyim say we are stingy. They might be right."
"You are right regarding Carter Nazi attitude. Not only he wanted to help an SS man, he is the one who now called Holocoust as " so called Holocoust " I am not surprised if he is a closet Holocoust denier."
"you have poisoned your own well sir."
"But after he was defeated by American people, he started to blame Jews and hooked up with Saudis against America and Israel."
"Carter claimed he would debate anyone, then refused to debate Dershowitz and next repeated his claim that he'd debate anyone, thus making him a bald-faced liar out of his own mouth.. It is Carter who is attempting to stop debate, not his critics. "
"There is amazing correspondence about Carter and his letter to help an SS man. Interesting posts from Nazi son talking about his father.... In fact all the information regarding Carter- SS nazi connection is amazing.. "
"In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts."
"As to Carter, he can win another Nobel as far as I concerned. He still the worst president who is responsible for Iran nightmare. He is a miserable coward who will never confront the truth. "
"Your entire series of articles show you to be what you are, a slanderer and Jewish apologist of the typical kind ... doing anything you see fit to discredit any one that could be perceived as any kind of threat to your own ideas ... and the usual crowd of tag along apologists you have supporting you on Gather must be typical also ... how sad ! "
"Jews did the biggest genocides of eastern europeans"
My own remarks again: this stream of commentary prove nothing other than what Carter had been claiming all along - - that it is impossible to have a reasoned debate and discussion on this subject in the current climate.
This will be my last comment on this series of articles and quite possibly the last installment I will read. After I have had the opportunity to read President Carter's book and do my own research I may post an article on the subject. I don't expect it to garner the attention from the powers-that-be at Gather that Mr. Dershowitz's series has, but, c'est la vie.
Arafat played Carter, and others, like a violin with no real progress what so ever in peace with the Palestinians. Just more millions of wasted dollars for Arafat's wife to retire on. Arafat never really wanted peace which is obvious if you followed his actions, and why Carter couldn't get it. Carter is no expert on peace, foreign policy (i.e. Iran), or relations between Palestinians and Israel. It would be better if people didn't listen to him, and I don't feel he should be talking about American policy either; as a retired President.
Many would consider him a nice guy, but I also remember his speech where he basically blamed all "us" for the poor economy and the state of the country. Check it out if you don't remember. I also haven't read the book, just excerpts, and won't spend money on it for his pocket. Give it to me free and I'll read it. Perhaps I'm being too harsh about him....?
Thanks.
It well done and ... absolutely helpless to the purposes it was written for.
It does not make any sense to write articles concerning some errors or mistakes or even lies in the book like we discussed about.
Mr. Carter was paid by Arabs to do this job. What else?
It is a comprehensive clarification of what kind of facts and comments can be found in this book.
The people who will read this book is looking for the additional facts to blame Israel and Jews. That is it. Nobody other than this kind of people will even try to read Carter's book.
No one of the participants of this kind of discussions will change their mind any way.
There are three groups that take part at all these articles' discussions.
1) The leftists that love Arab's terrorists because generally speaking all liberals -- according to the basic dogmas of their liberal religion - consider terrorists as "freadom fighters".
2) Nazis that hate Jews and for this particular reason ... love Arabs.
3) Reasonable Americans who don't wont to fight at their backyard and for this reason only prefer to support Israel as long as this country fights terrorists overseas.
The "third group" represents the vast majority of American people.
These people don't care what Carter wrote at all. The book that will be consider as the response to Carter 's book should be addressed to these people only.
My first comment to the Part 1 of this series of articles clarifies in more details the basic structure of the possble book-response to all recent Carter's writings and speeches.
anyway, mr alan, i don't know how much shame u have left u but i can see that u have no humanity left in ur harvard mind. it amazes me to see that such great education could not give u sensibility and respect for human dignity that academic failures like myself have.
i see no point is saying middle east and peace in same sentence when the world has people like u who put mindless hate and feeling of entitlement above reason and justice.
********
Guys, I've read the articles and some of the comments. I think caution should be exercised when judging anyone......actually, its not really our place to judge. These are sensitive and passion-igniting topics.....and character assination isn't pretty. There hasn't been a president of higher integrity than Mr. Carter in a very long time. We may agree,or in this case disagree, about someone's decisions(and even question their motives); but that doesn't give us license to trash them because we disagree with them. The Author is ferverent in his beliefs, and strong in expressing them.....but that doesn't mean they are either accurate or constuctive. It strikes me that his anger is based on a feeling of betrayal. One thing Carter is really good at is listening to alternate points of view, and getting people of diametrically opposing 'positions' to get off of them,and accept the other's right to do their thing......all the time, not necessarily agreeing any of with them. This is how he has stopped many wars from ever happening.....brokering diverse interests to work together towards mutual benefit....so many thousands of people didn't suffer or die. Also, he hasn't been shy to address thorny issues. In this instance, I hazard to guess that Mr. Dershowitz found Mr. Carter...after "30 years of knowing him" to not be married to his beliefs.....hence a feeling of betrayal, and the 2ndary emotion of anger...resulting in trashing. After working in a university for 8 years there is one thing I learned really well.....many profs, while talented and bright, often get stuck in their view of the world that they 'developed' over their many years of study/experience. Their reputation, standing in the intellectual community, and even sense of self (vis-a-v their ego) is often tied directly into this view that they 'added to the body of knowledge.' Its hard, after many years of self reinforcement, to get distance from them and retain a broader perspective(aka broader than their gospel). I don't mean to trash Mr. Dershowitz.....he is obviously a very talented and reknowned person.....I merely am asking him to re-consider, stepback a bit, and try to avoid going on a personal tear in the rest of his series of articles...an action that will only hurt his reputation more. (hint: showing lack of objectivity). Many people think politicians believe what they believe.....that's their talent, btw..... Mr. Carter obviously doesn't share Mr. Dershowitz's views....when,before Carter's recent book, Mr. Dershowitz thought he did. Oh well..... I, for one, would like to learn more from prof Dershowitz....about his research, work, ideas, and life's work; instead of articles that could easily appear in "The Star," or one of those rags. So what if Carter got money.....duh... I persoanlly agree that there is 'good' money, and 'dirty' money; and that a university shouldn't take the later.....a position that got me into a lot of trouble at my university since I was in fundraising;-o By taking'dirty' money we can get associated with the values (or lack thereof) of the donor. But I was taught, the hard way, that its what you do with the money that counts. How you live your life, that counts. A lot of great Catholic charities benefited from mafia money, and did amazing things with it.....money from people who wanted to buy their way to heaven....not unlike the libraries that Andrew Carnagie built all over the country to ease his conscience. I don't know what money Carter got, or why, or what he did with it.....not my business. It surely doesn't mean he was"for sale." I live in georgia,and know first hand the derision...and huge personal financial and power losses he suffered for many years for tying AID funding to human rights. He was mocked by the very people who put him in office,and painted as a "N" lover and a bleeding heart. .....but in the long run, he still did the right thing. We have very few leaders who even know what the right thing is, much less try to lead according to it; or, in Carter's case, withstand the blows of following their convictions. So he said something "out of school" in his current book......something politically incorrect....oh well,again. Maybe it needed to be said. Maybe he's getting the same kind of treatment he's always gotten for spearheading change....abuse. And who does most of the "abusing" in these instances? Those who stand to "lose" something in the process. Those who can't cope with alternate views than their own. Unless Dr. Dershowitz wants to paint himself as one of these kind of people, he should exercise caution. He has that paint brush in his hand right now; its totally his own choice how he wants to portray himself.....to be remembered. Whinning about the same old tired issues are falling on deaf ears everywhere these days.....beating of the breast is very passe. But they say dinosauers died cuz they couldn't adapt; and unfortunately that's how many very good professors end their otherwise admirable careers.....failing to understand their environment. Our "environment" has changed forever. We have much more important tasks at hand, than to beat up the few good leaders we have left. I hope Dr. Dershowitz can do what he is probably best at: inspiring others to believe, and do good things. Don't cry if our saints fall. Cry that we don't have many saints-in-training. Cry that we allow others to manipulate us into turning good people onto other good people...rather than the good people using their talents towards nurturance, growth, and the furtherance of life. Unless we "get" the real issues, and turn this trend around, our children won't have much of a world to live in. There's no Holocaust for mankind worse than the loss of hope in life. I agree with "Never Forget;" but I think he's trying to say "look forward" so our children have a world worth living in. And to do that, we have to face realities we would rather spin differently. The "American Dream", is over. The "American Nightmare" is what we are headed for; unless we end "The American Delusion." This means a fundamental re-evaluation of things we are all 'comfortable with;' but detrimental for a good future.
patrick m. commented Jan 22, 2007
Why nobody address one question and one question only:
Why Carter doesn't answer ANY questions regarding more than $100, 000,000 he got from Saudis?
Whatever Mr. Dershowitz agenda is why nobody talks about specific and precise allegations?
Does it means everything they say is true?
I challenge ANYONE here on board to take just ONE thing from the list and disapprove it, based on FACTS.
Here is the comprehensive list.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1273
index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1273
What makes sense is ultimately what must be done. If not, then what is left is only senselessness. And senselessness will will never be resolved equitably. The fact is , that there does indeed exist, a way to establish lasting peace and for both sides to have a home. But it will require trust, respect, and honor amongst all those involved, including the general population of both sides. Issues go one after the other. But as long as distrust, and reasons for distrust exist, it would be better to simply leave them to their own devices and not get involved. As it stands, even though both sides do indeed have legitimate concerns, those concerns will never be resolved while people who stand to gain from the conflict are allowed to do the negotiating. Better that the leadership involved in this process should make public oaths for all the world to see and hear, that they relinquish any and all interests from which they stand to profit if the status quo is maintained. After which they should allow full disclosures of the process. But this will never happen because greed and pride still occupy a higher place in our minds than do peace and love for our brothers and sisters out there. I might sound like an idealistic hippy, but truth is truth. You will never reach agreement when distrust and treachery are seen as tools to resolve conflict. They should either be allowed to kill each other freely as the world looks on, or they should come to a peaceful solution. As it stands currently, too many other countries, including our own, are profiting from the sale of arms and other "war related services" to both sides. So they need to settle it. Or maybe they just don't realize how well they're being played by everyone else.
mainly cause I was born during the shadow of the holocaust (1951/Netherlands).
I am proud, that The Netherlands have been very loyal in the past century and that we also served the Russian Jews at our embassy in Moscow to leave for Israël,etc.
Since the year 2000 my sympathy has been shifting from Israel to Palestina, because of what I do read about it and see at BBC-world. I am not the only one.
One of our prime ministers (van Agt) said in an interview in a national quality newspaper, that he was "sorry, to support Israël so unconditionally" as he had done in his 6 years of office. (end of the eighties).
How Israël reacted on the kidnapping of two soldiers; excessively.
I'll quote my own posting at the BBC (who has a very balanced attitude).
Quote;
I experienced something in the last week, while I did not want to.
It started by rading about a kidnapping of Hezbollah of two Isr. soldiers.
To international law there are ways of dealing with it, like
exange in this situation with hundreds of Palestinian children
who are still in prison in Israël.
The mane blame - and right they/we are - is always, that civilians
should be kept out of the combat.
Israël reacted like a giant, killing a bugging insect.
We all know what happened in the first week.(Huge overdosis of firing power, killing many fleeing civilians In Libanon, etc. etc. etc.)
But after a week, I did not hear ánything any more about GAZA and I started to forget Gaza, while Israël had destroyed their one and only electricity "fabric" and continued destroying roads, bridged, etc.
One móre week, and "war" became the common word inside me, asif to parties had declared to destruct each other.
The whole idea of outraged relatiation had disappeared out of my mind,
while it still was ánd is. It is an extreme ongoing outrage reaction
of Israël that of course also provoces terrorists and non terrorists.
It may very well be, that cynic leaders of Hezbolla did hope for this outraged reaction of Israël. Possible. Véry possible. Maybe it helps them to remain in their shady positions while recruting children to become "marters".
It does not change my point of view.
The terrorist use now their banana rockets and Israël bombs the capital of a moderate nation around its borders = Libanon.
Even civílians who left a city , yesterday, who got permission to leave ,were áll bombed and killed while in their cars on the road!!
Sick, more than sick.
This is just plain and brutal murder of civilians.
And they are injuring my solidarity with them.
It is getting less and less.
Of course I will never wish the state of Israël dismantled. It's a construction of the U.N. and - although not very balanced - it's a political reality that should stay this way; yes because of what all happened through the ages in Europe with the Jews.
Europe with his slavery, colonies, two world wars, holocaust.
We should hasitate to raise our voice, but we are growing into a new area with Western generations, who are far more globally oriented.
Israëls cabinet is behaving like a giant who can do whatever he pleases and it makes the middle east a very unbalanced place.
I agree with a former prime minister in The Netherlands who returned
from a visit to Israël a few months ago; "we should have been much
more critical in our support for the Israéli gouvernement".In the eightees.
The Palestinians live half a century now in desert prisons and we axpect them to wait for new UN resolutions?
And where is the real, political and financial aid from the Arab world.
It is good to see, that fínally they start giving some dollars and
speak publically their political support as Egypt and Saudi did last week.
I fear that the Bush administration has manoeuvred itself from the very first elections in the arms of lobbyistst that don't give a damn
about balances, geo politics, long term policies, not to say palestinians.
I can be very angry about the Jewish lobby in the USA, but I admit, that ány lobby group that can be close to USA power should do the same; get as much as they want.
The Arab and European countries should help/create a real Palestinian
lobby, not based of fear for Al Quaidy, but based of feeling the power of oil, of millions of Arabs and Europeans and realizing that the only way in geopolitics is to realize that we áll are interdependent from each other and that conservative arrogance is a very stupid way of behaving.
By the way, why doesn't China raise it's voice. They think about dollars and keeping Tibet.
Russia; 30% dictatorship, another 30% maffia and a remaining 30% of
diffuse "co-operation".
I would not like to exchange the USA for either China or Russia.
From the very beginning we could have known that the Bush administration was and is ruled by Cheney and Weinberger and they
get their credo from a very popular neo conservative book, which says;
"Within America, we should act morally towards each others, but óutside the U.S.A. we should behave according to the rules of the jungle".
Tim Sebastian (Hard Talk - BBC world oct. 2005) said to the writer;
1) That's not the vision of the founding fathers, isn't it
2) Morals are for the bad times, not for the good times, isn't it.
Again, as long as I live I'll defend the rights of the Israëli's to defend their own state (was not the most wise idea from the U.N., but the deal has been made and we all should stick to that, including Israél of course),
but my sympathy for the Israëlis who support their government is completely lost and as long as they do so, it will not return.
Both "parties" are kidnapped by extremists.
Both parties?
Yes both parties; Rabin was not murdered by a Palestinian, but an Israëli.
I'm glad there is such a thing as BBC who keeps the picture balanced.
Amsterdam,
Alfredo
Page 179: Hamas was now [January 2006] holding many local posts, and their incumbent officials had been free of any allegations of corruption and, for sixteen months, had meticulously observed a cease-fire commitment, which they called hudna.
page 184: When I questioned him about the necessity for Hamas to renounce violence and recognize Israel, [Hamas member Dr. Mahmoud Ramahi] responded that they had not committed an act of violence since a cease-fire was declared in August 2004 ..."
CNN, Larry King Live, Nov. 27, 2006:
... since August of 2004 ... Hamas has not been guilty of an act of terrorism that cost an Israeli life."
PBS, NewsHour, Nov. 28, 2006:
Carter: "... since August of 2004, has not committed a single act of terrorism that cost an Israeli life, not a single one."
Judy Woodruff: "I think many Americans would be surprised to hear that."
Carter: "I know. They would be surprised, but it's an actual fact."
FACT:
On Aug. 31, 2004, Sixteen people were killed and 100 wounded in two nearly simultaneous suicide bombings aboard two city buses in Beer Sheva. Hamas claimed responsibility.
On Sept. 29, 2004, two preschool children were killed by a Qassam rocket fired from Gaza. Hamas claimed responsibility.
On Jan 13, 2005, Palestinians terrorists attacked the Karni crossing between the Gaza Strip and Israel, killing 6 civilians. Hamas claimed joint responsibility.
On July 14, 2005, a woman was killed by a Qassam rocket fired from Gaza. Hamas claimed responsibility.
But you won't hear that on Democracy Now, as another commentator suggests. That incredibly biased show presents only the hard left, anti American, anti Israeli position. When I wrote my book "The case for Peace," they refused to have me on. My writing presents a much more balanced and two sided approach than anything you will hear on Democracy Now.
One commentator says that "any psychologist will tell you that there is no such thing as an accident" and that therefore Israel is as morally culpable for accidentally killing Palestinian civilians as Palestinian terrorists are for specifically targeting children and bus passengers. That is absurd. Every moral military accidentally kills civilians in the process of attacking combatants. Moreover I know no decent psychologist who would say that 'there is no such thing as an accident." Even Freud would not attribute lightning striking a pedestrian to anyone's subconscious.
Finally, to the two people whose eloquence permits them nothing more than four letter words, I would hope that Jimmy Carter would not be happy to have you as his allies.
Just wanted to remind you, this article is NOT about Israel vs. Palestinians.
The article called Ex President For Sale
Stick to the point.
Why don't you address facts instead?
KHOW-AM, The Caplis & Silverman Show (Denver), Dec. 12, 2006:
In defense of his use of the word "apartheid," Carter suggests that the dictionary definition and the United Nations definition of the word have nothing to do with "race."
Silverman: ... one point that you have made in the book ... is that Israel itself is a beautiful society, it's a democracy ... people have equal rights, including Arab citizens, correct?
Carter: Yes, that's absolutely correct
Silverman: But then when you talk about apartheid – you're accusing the Israel government of apartheid – and when I hear that term "apartheid," I think of virulent racism. And how can anybody help but think that and not associate that with the Israeli government?
Carter: All you have to do is read the book and you see that I make it very clear in the book that I'm not talking about racism, it's not based on racism. ... [I]t's not based on race, it's based on avarice of Palestinian land.
Silverman: But won't you concede, sir, that the word apartheid connotes racism in the minds of most people?
Carter: No, I don't think so. If you look at the dictionary, even the largest dictionaries or even look at the official definition of apartheid in the United Nations its based on mandatory separation of two people and the persecution of one group by the other.
FACT:
Definitions of the word "apartheid" not only connote, but state, that it is based on race.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines apartheid as "inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group ...."
The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid has a more detailed definition of apartheid that leaves no room for doubt about the racial nature of the crime:
For the purpose of the present Convention, the term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:
(a) Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person:
(i) By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
(ii) By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(iii) By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
(b) Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
(c) Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
d) Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;
(e) Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
(f) Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.
"He also suggested a moral equivalence between the deliberate targeting of Israeli children by terrorists and the accidental killing of children (some of whom are 17-year-old terrorists) by the Israeli Defense Force in their legitimate efforts to stop terrorism. "
speaks volumes for your hatred of the Palestinians. Where is your condemnation of the death of the innocent children of the Palestinians or of Lebanon? Noone can excuse the bombing of innocent civilians on buses or anywhere for that matter. Except you of course, and your neocon friends here and elsewhere who condone the murder of innocent Palestinians and place blame EXCLUSIVELY on the Palestinians. Utter and unadulterated rubbish and you all know it. The fighters of Hamas use the only means at their disposal to fight the Israelis, rockets, guns, suicide bombs, and for the ordinary Palestinian, stones. The Israelis respond by artillery fire, tanks crushing homes, assaults on Palestinians on a daily basis, even starve them. How you can justify any of this is, to put it politely, DISGUSTING.
So much for the nonsense of the impending doom of some sort of Islamic crusade against the rest of the world.
Bigotry is as abominable as racism Mr Dershowitz, and your rabid anti-Islamism is as abhorrent and repulsive as anti-Semitism, and other form of bigotry. Sadly, you share that particular illness with many others here on Gather. Oh, and the cry of "many of my best friends are Muslims" should any of you choose to make it is a complete irrelevance when your views on Islam completely contradict such statements.
A very objectionable, bigoted, (racist?) article.
Good luck with your tree planting. Please plow some field for me too...
Do you plant peanuts, like our ex president?
Btw BTN does not allow you to use any other sources Rom except books you have read. As I hold contrary views to Mr BTN I will allow you to use other sources although he might tell you off.
Mr. Dershowitz: Not every aggressive event (I believe you characterize them as "moral military" - a strange oxymoron I think) "accidentally kills civilians in the process of attacking combatants". However in contemporary military justification of VICTORY, the targetting of known civilian locations to affect at least the possibility of collateral damage on suspected enemies - along with the intimidation of non-allied populations appears to be accepted practice. This strategy might easily be defined as terrorism is it is used by one's opponents, but as 'necessary and moral' if it supports or justifies that victory "thing".
Ignoring the liklihood that the intent of your critic was probably aimed in that direction is the sign of a manipulative trial lawyer parsing what "is" is. It does not speak well for your Harvard base and Gather pronounced significance. Is it not just as much a terror inspiring event to have bombs suddenly fall from the sky on your village and family as it is to have your office buildings destroyed by suicidal airplane hijackers?
1. An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation.
[Afrikaans : Dutch apart, separate (from French à part, apart; see apart) + Dutch -heid, -hood.]
Are these people anti-Israel too?
Ami Ayalon, the former head of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence agency said: "The things a Palestinian has to endure, simply coming to work in the morning, is a long and continuous nightmare that includes humiliation bordering on despair. Is the option of Jewish democracy with apartheid acceptable? I think not."
Yossi Alpher, a former senior adviser in the Israeli government, once warned that with their unwavering support for Israel's approach to Palestine, neoconservatives in the Bush administration have encouraged Israel to create "an apartheid reality that is the very antithesis of the democratization that they preach for the region."
B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights says: "Israel has established in the Occupied Territories a separation cum discrimination regime, in which it maintains two systems of laws, and a person's rights are based on his or her national origin. This regime is the only of its kind in the world, and brings to mind dark regimes of the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa."
Israeli historian Benny Morris observes that Zionists could choose from only two options: "the way of South Africa"--i.e., "the establishment of an apartheid state, with a settler minority lording it over a large, exploited native majority"--or "the way of transfer"--i.e., "you could create a homogeneous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority by moving or transferring all or most of the Arabs out."
The editorial board of Israel's leading newspaper Haaretz, published an editorial in September 2006 which said that "the apartheid regime in the territories remains intact; millions of Palestinians are living without rights, freedom of movement or a livelihood, under the yoke of ongoing Israeli occupation,"
In an article, "Road Map to Grand Apartheid? Ariel Sharon's South African Inspiration," Israeli researcher Gershom Gorenberg concluded that it is "no accident" that Sharon's plan for the West Bank "bears a striking resemblance to the 'grand apartheid' promoted by the old South African regime." Sharon himself reportedly stated that "the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict."
In a 2002 speech in the United States, South Africa's Nobel Peace Prize laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu referred to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Christians and Muslims as "Israeli apartheid."
Former President South Africa Nelson Mandela in a March 28, 2001 speech said: "As to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there is an additional factor. The so-called "Palestinian autonomous areas" are bantustans. These are restricted entities within the power structure of the Israeli apartheid system."
The conflict is in highly populated areas, when Hammas fire rockets towards populated areas of Israel ON DAILY BASIS. Even today Palestinians fire at civilian cities like Sderot. In Lebanon Hizbolla used to fire missiles toward Israeli cities exclusively targeting civilians. Unfortunately civilians are in the middle when Israel tries to retaliate.
I noticed you don't have anything to say about specifics, just generalities.
This article called Ex president for sale. This article is not about Dershowitz.
The question remains the same- is Carter an paid agent of Arab Lobby? If you think he is not, then why?
Why the same people who accuse Jewish lobby say Carter is OK to get $100,000,000 from Saudis? Why Carter doesn't respond and REFUSES to debate?
Those questions need to be addressed. After all this is ex president of USA.
Semantics are being twisted and distorted or else are crystal clear ... seems to me that the two sides will use the meaning that they are most comfortable with ... being the one that supports their own motives and desires.
There is a 'side' that believes that peace is the way ... another side that sees everything as the result of force.
It really comes down to love for your fellows or fear of them with hatred. The coming times will get each what they most seek ... beware what you ask for.
I here fully agree with the "intentions" of the article and comments posted here by Abu.
He has an extremely valid perspective ... and it is peace oriented to the degree of giving the benefit of the doubt in that direction ... he is looking for positives while allowing the full disclosure of the negatives.
Some that argue against him are looking for only what they consider a positive. As for the statement:
I contest that the Zionist/Neo-conservative cabal is a devolutionary force that bringing us back into racist, bigoted, illogical, unreasonable anti-just, inhuman tyranny. And if we do not wake up and judge with the the spirit of The Law as well as the letter of it, we will find ourselves as international pariahs, with no friends at all. Not even God. The world will either evolve or man will destroy himself.
That is a statement that should be thought about thoroughly ... there is much neglected truth in it.
If the people that are under the forms of leadership that are causing serious problems in this world do not do their best to keep their own leadership representatives in check ... then those people will also come under the condemnation of opposing others that would seek to destroy the 'guilty' perpetrators ...
When we have leaders of any nation that go about their business in aggressive war like manners in the world, they will get reactions and enemies ... that is the natural order of things ... for every action there will be an equal but opposite reaction ... sometimes due to inequity of matching strengths, those reactions will be spread out over time ... but they will surely be accounted for, and the Karmic debt will paid ! (you just might look at 9/11 as an example of that, if one were honest about all that was involved).
Right now we are having the playing out of a very long term interaction of competing ideologies ... it seems to me that the Zionist philosophy has ridden in on the back of the Jewish religion, that being their protector and excuse to promote what is essentially secular aims of power consolidation via nation building.
In cahoots with them, there is the Neo-Con agenda in the USA that is also purely secular and has the very same aims as the Zionists mentioned ... consolidation of power and wealth into a one world government ! Those in the USA have enticed the conservative Christians to do their bidding for support and votes ...
Maybe you can see, if you are honest, just where this seems to be headed !?! We have active involvement all over by the leadership, overt as in FOX News programs and Glen Beck on another network ... going full blast to promote Fear, suspicions, terror, and actual hatreds towards Muslims in general in the guise of anti-terrorism alerts and cautions ... it is obviously an attempt to incite the common folk listeners and watchers into supporting the not so hidden agenda of drumming up support for near future war promulgation, probably beginning with Iran ...(this has the covert intentions of hidden peoples at the heads of Corporatocracy movements world-wide)
These Neo-Con-Zionist types are really following a long term trend laid out as the basis of some writings that I have mentioned lately ... the Muslims in the form of the Arabs in the Middle Eastern countries that have the Oil reserves are very aware of this plan ... it is roundly denied of course in the west ...
If the entire world were to awake to this TRUTH of what is really going on ... and in the name and guise of RELIGION yet ... just maybe it could all be stopped before it is too late ...
As it is, the 'sides' have gathered in full support of their 'leaders' that have lied to them and tricked them into that support based upon fears and hatreds ... instead of the love and forgiveness that the purported religions ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ALL ABOUT !!!
People ... all of you ... had better begin to really wake up to where you are being taken in this world ... a real day of reckoning is fast approaching.
There will be a Spiritual separation coming, between those that are really operating on Love ... and those that are locked into Fear ... those are polar differences ... and believe it or not, the real Spirit is that of UNconditional Love ... which resides non-judgmentally right in between the central dividing line between each of the choices between such extremes ... not out on the so called perfect end of a linear scale called good/love as opposed to evil/bad on the other end ...
It is the UNCONDITIONAL LOVE of GOD-SPIRIT that will SAVE ... THAT is not in an extreme, but right in the center of all decisions of a personal nature ... those cumulative over all.
People, you had better quit looking to your LOST Leaders, both secular AND religious to guide you down THEIR paths ... the blind following the Blind ... start to think for yourselves with the intention of seeking TRUTH ... you will find that to be LOVE of the UNconditional kind ... found right INside of yourSelf. In the end, that is all that can really SAVE you !!!
Spirit Calls ... for Peace !!!, j.
I don't have anything against trees and their huggers, I don't have anything against you. I just know what trees have to do with our corrupted ex president, who got hired by Saudi Lobby. The only connection I see is the fact that Carter is a peanut farmer... but I don't know if peanuts grow on trees... you might know better...
This is the reason he is so valuable for their propaganda purposes. In fact Carter is a BRAND. If you shaw up in Mercedes for example it comes with a brand name.
If you can buy a president with couple of millions you have a Brand name working for you. Brand name can not be neutral. You can not say Mercedes is just another car.
You have the right. Free choice..
My opinion, they have a very good reason to pay and I am very skeptical if they have anything in mind that remotely connected to any of those values.
AIPAC and " jewish Lobby" ? Just go on their website and find out. They are clear about their agenda and it is legitimate. BTW CAIR agenda is legitimate too...
The problem is when Arab Lobby hires a president who doesn't admit he promotes their agenda. Arab Lobby has `a right to promote their agenda. Cuban lobby are OK to promote their agenda. Gun Lobby are allowed to promote their agenda.
What is immoral is to hire ex president of a country and HIDE his agenda.
NOT THE FACT THAT CARTER WORKS FOR THE ARAB LOBBY IS THE PROBLEM.
THE FACT THAT HE HIDES HIS WORK FOR THE ARAB LOBBY IS THE PROBLEM
The rest of us aren't avoiding the facts. WE realise that is about the bigger picture, not limiting ourselves to some paltry irrelevance, i.e. personal attacks on Jimmy Carter, but examining the bigger picture, why he said what he said, and exposing the bigotry and paranoia which you and on the Right and the "liberal" Alan Dershowtiz thrive on, in an attempt to avoid the truth.
As Jack Nicholson once said: "You can't handle the truth".
Elizabeth, good post and you are right, It is in the Bible about Israel forming a nation.
And no, I am not a "tree hugger". The bark scrapes my skin and isn't as pleasant as my own species or, come to that, my cats. In fact for many years I was the Chief Economist of a major international oil company. Go figure.
My point is that whatever one thinks about Carter's novel can be independent of one's environmental views or even one's association with "big oil".
As for what started the tree stuff, the trees in Israel, Jews around the world have been massively planting trees in Palestine and later in Israel; there's a huge charity called Keren Kayemes l'Yisrael which has charity boxes all over the world in stores and other locations. Chances are that just as the Jews created Tel Aviv out of sand dunes, they created vastly more trees in "Palestine" than did the Arabs; in fact forests of them. The Arab contribution to this Jewish forestation was repeatedly to set malicious fires to destroy the trees.
I will be the last person who claims Arab Lobby is not active in promoting their couse in Washington. Everybody knows about it. Saudis are in bed with Baker and Bush family for many years and recently Baker's lay firm was exposed as working with Saudis.
This is NOT news. Any sane person knows that. You see saudis don't have ant leverage on Americans in the open debate. Everybody knows their "tolerance" and human rights records. Everybody knows 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.
The only chance to promote their interests they have is to operate behind the back of American people. They BUY politicians all the time.
So, Brian I agree Saudi money doesn't smell and I am sure Carter can use some to build his legacy after he is gone. His interest is clear.
I think the point is: why distract ourselves from the important things to solve...pretending being 2b naive? Its kinda old school marketing/spin control 'managment' vs. the young and disgusted generation. I venture to guess that Brain is in his 20's. The change in this new generation is something very good.....tho sometimes hard to see past the piercings. The "piercings" (real and metaphorical) are jokes on our older generation....to challenge people to look under the image to see the real person, the real thing. Our generation is so steeped in marketing and spin control that we don't even see the "desperate housewive's/Nip Tuck delusion" we are mimicing......making the point even stronger. We have to get off staid 'positions' and have foreign policy reflect the words that are spoken. And, foreign policy has to be bi-partisian; bi-racial, multi-faceted.....and most importantly, be consistent for more than the 4yrs of the current resident in the white house. Brian is right, we are the laughing stock of the world.
Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in the number of trees, all the more remarkable because it has been achieved in an area considered mainly desert.
Isn't it funny Arabs try to win in the are they are the weakest? lol
The 'rom m.' above is a generated account used only to support this series of articles. It has one image posted, (after I highlighted that on one of the other shills), and is only commenting about Dr. D.'s articles about President Carter.
When I worked with the Carnies as a kid these were known as 'shills' or planted support in the crowd to get the mases to go along with whatever was being bilked out of them. In this case slander.
The reason is simple. It bothers me that Ex President of my country works for Saudis when they are responsible for 9/11.
They poured $100, 000, 000 into his pocket to promote their agenda.
Carter refused to explain why he excepted the money and why he never worked for human rights in Saudi Arabia.
I question whether Saudi money hold him back from criticizing their human rights abuses etc. I suspect his anti Israel books are influences and/ or bought by the Arab money. This is MY opinion.
Lloiyd, I ask you a question, is it not legitimate? And if not, why not?
Excellent observation, Bruce. You and Rory continue to remind Professor Dershowitz of the extremism of his own comments.
The most glaring false statement that I have seen so far concerns Dershowitz' assertion that Israel wholeheartedly backs the "Road Map to Peace".
Just this month, Israel has again begun new settlements on the West Bank, which action contradicts the Roadmap.
And, Dershowitz conveniently has not responded to leaked data showing that up to 30% of Israeli settlements are on land still owned by Arabs. "No appropriation of Arab land" is a falsehood.
"Sleazy Lawyer for Sale" is a no-brainer to the general public.
But that title is no more inflamatory than the one Dershowitz employs.
the issue in hand is NOT whether Palestinians or Israelis are right or wrong. You try to distract us from the article tilted EX PRESIDENT FOR SALE.
The article tells us ex president Carter got some serious money from the Arab lobby to promote their agenda, but refused to disclose it. Even if Palestinians are right and Israelis are wrong on all counts we still left with the question, don't we?
And Peter, I like your quote. While I'm in nobody's pay, the thing that struck me most in the literature of the Carter Center was a quote by Carter on hope. To roughly paraphrase (cuz my memory sux, as evidenced by my spelling ;-) he said: "Without hope there isn't life. When we give hope, we give life." He isn't totally 'clean', but who is.....the one thing I do know is that millions of people have regained hope due to his efforts worldwide. Whenever I have vistors from overseas, to my home in Atlanta, the place they always want to see? The Carter Center. Well, that and the "world of Coke a cola" ;-) ....And MLK's center. Those are the top three...... Funny, nobody wants to see Tara :-o
Prof D WILL however be offering a rebutal of Carters speech directly after the lecture. Keep up
That's right, without hope there is no life.
Carter hopes to live a legacy for himself. He has a problem however, as he known by the title THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.
Why he is called like that? Because we don't like him? Because something wrong about his "ideas"?
NO!. The reason he is called the worst president of USA is because a simple fact.
He lost election by the worst margin in history of USA. American people rejected him then and he is horrified to realize it.
On top of that he will be known as a corrupted leader, like his friend Arafat.
Debate is a free flow of ideas, free speech and accountability. This is an American way.
Carter failed to promote free flow of ideas and all this country stands for.He is an exposed hypocrite.
The fact that Carter is silent speaks volumes. American people are not fools. We know when people are hiding from open debate. Carter is a coward and this is the reason he uses ' bait and switch" tactic and than hides from truth.
He uses his statue as a president to "bait" and when approached with solid facts he has nothing to say, but claims the another person is incompetent to answer.If Dershowitz is so wrong why wouldn't you shaw American people why?You can put Dershowits to shame easily, right? Do you think American people will buy an used car from Carter?
I would like to ask you as simply as possible! Are you trying to say that the Israsel is completely blameless in all matters. That they have not treated the Palestinian people anything but fairly. I have watched world news and documentrys that dispute, the innocent act Israel is putting on. The borders that the Palestinians have to travel back and forth thru to go to work and home. Are manned by soldiers that were laughing at the fact that they could make these people stand for hours in the rain. They kept referring to them as animals and non-human. Also you say that their were Jews on the land for 3,000 years. And that their was no force used to take the land which is now Israel. Well I remember being taught about the three day war. And that the Jews had weapons that were either stolen or from shipments they were able to divert of American weapons. They obtained after the Nazis had been beaten, and these were the weapons used againest the Arab people. If as you say their was no need to fight then, why is history saying they used these weapons. Fighting a people that could only fight back with crude home made weapons and rocks. It seems that this is another case of a people swearing they are not practicing an form of racism. And using tactic's that have been used forever to conquer another country. It was done by the English in Africa and India, and the Russians in Afganistan. They come with their Bible in one hand and a gun in the other. And the next thing you know, the people that are native to that land. Have a new set of rules that make them second class citizens in their own country.Two systems of Laws and Rights based on your national orgin, sounds a little like the slave codes to me. It's funny that you wrote a best seller about The Abuse Excuse, and as long as the Jews are dishing it out, everything is alright. But as soon as these people fight back whatever way they can to obtain their freedom and land back. Jews are being picked on, because they never do anything wrong!
"Islam is the enemy of mankind and Carter is the enemy of all things American."
Mister X keep your bigotry to yourself before making such sweeping, generalising offensive comments. I am supposedly of a "Christian" denomination, but I find Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and their kind deeply offensive and consider them the enemy of mankind but I wouldn't label ALL Christians the enemy of mankind.
Comments like that should be deleted.
Fresh Air Interview