Speakout: Carter does Palestinian cause a disservice with his new book

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Stephanie, Dec 10, 2006.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    Jimmy Carter was not only a disgrace as a President of the United States....He became a total disgrace against America...I'm so sad at some of the shit this man went and did to our Country while he was speaking overseas...
    Yet people applauded him....
    Well it's evident, this time he finally crossed the line that most of us had seen yrs ago........
    I hate to say I told ya so....
    I never wished anything bad on this man, what I had wished is just that HE WOULD JUST GO AWAY.....
    Now it seems like, he will, finally.........:
    Not soon enough.....
    :bye1:

    Eran Lerman
    December 9, 2006
    Former President Jimmy Carter is a man of good intentions, whose tireless efforts - deeply rooted in his interpretation of his Christian duties - to promote world peace need to be recognized, even when they lead him astray. Thus, there is a tragic element in his present failure to grasp the full implications of his own positions and statements.
    At the root of the failure, as one might well conclude reading his new book - menacingly called Palestine Peace not Apartheid - is the honest urge to do something for the Palestinian cause. This urge then sadly translates into a one-sided judgment upon Israel, which breaks one of Carter's own rules: "The United States must be . . . a partner with both sides and not a judge of either" (Page 16).

    The tragedy is that important elements in this book will be read by others - and by the Palestinians - not as an invitation to negotiate in good faith, but as a prelude to a "show trial" over Israeli policy, based on Carter's highly problematic reading of both history and international law.

    Five key objections to his approach need to be raised - not because Israel should be above criticism, but rather because the false anticipation of such an external "verdict" is precisely what has vitiated the Palestinians' future, and the peace process, for much too long. Carter hopes to help the Palestinians; Carter's book does them a disservice.

    1. To begin with, there is the title - and the jacket, which helps perpetuate a false image of the "wall" of separation (and the "facts" he quotes about the barrier are equally inaccurate). To allude to the loaded issue of race - from the depth of Carter's own experience in the transition form the old to the new South; let alone the apartheid regime in South Africa - is to misread the very nature of the conflict between two nations which have no racial differentiation between them.

    2. Of far greater consequence is the constantly repeated assertion that Israel is in breach of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242. Carter claims that the solution lies in "Withdrawal to the 1967 border as specified in U.N. Resolution 242 and as promised in the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Agreement and prescribed in the Roadmap . . . Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law" (Pages 215-216).

    Therein lies, tragically, the false hope, offered here to the Palestinians, that the need to seek a reasonable accommodation with the mainstream of Israeli opinion can be replaced by some coercive international judgment upon Israel's policies.

    But neither the specific history of 242 (which Carter ignores), nor the language of Camp David, Oslo and the Roadmap support his reading.

    3. Overall, the tendency to rely upon the U.N. as an institution is bound to be troubling to Israelis, scarred over the years by the manner in which they were treated in U.N. or U.N.-sponsored forums in New York, Geneva or Durban. Moreover, Carter's reading of the issue of the "Right of Return," which is central to the Arab League "initiative" of March 2002, is colored by this peculiar interpretation of the role of the U.N.

    4. While often informative about the complexities of the region, the book tends to overestimate the centrality of the Palestinian issue - even in the context of the Sunni-Shiite divide, which has nothing to do with it. At one point, Carter seems to be moaning the lack of commitment by other Arabs to the Palestinian cause (!) - a sure way to reach a quick impasse. Ironically, Carter's greatest historical achievement, the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, is rooted not in this attitude, but rather in Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's decision to focus on Egypt's legitimate need for peace with Israel.

    5. The persistent tendency to minimize the role of terror attacks in destroying the process is another problematic aspect of Carter's narrative. Indeed, when Carter addressed the Herz- liyah Conference (a major annual event, co-sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, which surveys Israel's strategic options) early this year, he offered an apologetic interpretation of Hamas policies and the view, somewhat corrected in the book, that terror erupted only after Benjamin Netanyahu was elected Israeli prime minister in May 1996. The audience gasped in surprise; the distortion was too much for them to bear.

    The same may be said of the present book. After all, as Carter himself admits, "the judgments will be made in Jerusalem, through democratic processes involving all Israelis who can express their views and elect their leaders."

    His book would have been a better contribution to this debate - and perhaps of help to the Israeli political factions whose cause he seeks to promote - if Carter would have avoided the misguided, one-sided narrative he chose to espouse.

    Eran Lerman is the director of the American Jewish Committee's Israel and Middle Eastern Office.
    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/speak_out/article/0,2777,DRMN_23970_5201255,00.html
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,202
    Carter does the world disservice by not retiring with dignity.
     
  3. roadhouse158
    Offline

    roadhouse158 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    122
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +30
    What makes me laugh is that a lot of people believe this is solely about land. Maybe around Gaza only. The rest of the Middle East just can't stomach the people of Israel. Their Jews...They hate Jews because their not Muslim. Jimmy Carter was, is, and always will be more "nice" than smart. You can't reason with these people. If Israel gave up all but 1 sq mile to the Palestinians, they still wouldn't be satisfied. They will never be satisfied until all Jews are dead. This was understood during the days of Hitler. Why not now? Not too long from now Israel is going to launch an air raid on Iran, and the whole world will think Israel is overreacting. I don't think so. If a guy in my neighborhood constantly called for my death, and was starting to equip himself with a gun, I believe I would shoot first. Carter is the main reason that I have no respect for Democrats. I can't believe the party still cherishes this man. If they didn't then I would be more willing to listen to them. I just can't. Not when their "heroes" are Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy. John McCain and Richard Burr in 08!!!
     
  4. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Because what is left of the party thinks as ass-backward as he does. Anyone with a lick of sense jumped ship by the time the 1980 election rolled around.
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I'm beginning to think that hatred for Jews is the only thing keeping all the muslims from killing each other.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I'm beginning to thing that hatred of the Jews is what is keeping the West from reaching coalescence.
     
  7. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    :wtf: that's a huge stretch--wanna expound on that thought?
     
  8. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    Anyone willing to consider the possibility that the keenest haters of all aren't Muslims or Christians or whites or blacks, but Jews? Anyone up for the possibility that hatred of white gentiles by Jews pretty much steered the ship of our politics and culture for the past several decades, and helps to explain why we simultaneously have a full-blown Third World invasion and a useless, senseless war in Iraq? Anyone stop to reflect on the fact that we would have no "war on terror" were it not for Jews? Anyone ever wonder why Jews are never mentioned in the media, but every other media name is... Jewish? Anyone ever wonder Steven Spielberg thinks WWII was a "great war" but Oliver Stone thinks Vietnam was horrible? Anyone ever wonder why Jews are all for integration in American schools, but want no such thing for their own schools? Or why America should have open borders, but Israel should have a wall? Paid for by American taxpayers? Anyone think it was odd that 90 percent of those who wanted the Iraq war were Jews? Some of whom had dual citizenship with Israel? Or think it's funny that they always say "Israel is our only ally in the Middle East," but that before Israel was our "friend," we HAD NO ENEMIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST? And if Israel is our friend, why did it kill American servicemen on the USS Liberty?

    Anyone think it's strange that you can go to a party and talk shit about Muslims, but not Jews? Because if you do, you get fired? Is that because Jews are such great fucking people, or because they're a dirty race of bullies that everyone's AFRAID OF?

    No? Hey, I'm just asking.
     
  9. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Ditto.

    But don't leave us out. We are to be hated almost if not as much.
     
  10. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Yeah, it's all one big Jewish conspiracy.:tinfoil:
     

Share This Page