TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Jimmy Carter steps in his own ****.
Jimmy Carter steps in his own ****.
Or something like that.
Link
| quote: |
14 Carter Center Advisers Resign Over Former President Jimmy Carter's Book Last Edited: Friday, 12 Jan 2007, 12:01 PM EST Created: Friday, 12 Jan 2007, 10:30 AM EST By Melissa Drosjack 01/12/2007 -- Fourteen members of a leadership group under former President Carter's think tank resigned Thursday over concerns that Carter's book on the Middle East does not represent "the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support." The members of the 200-member Board of Councilors, a leadership advisory group founded in 1987, join a longtime Carter aide, Jewish groups and lawmakers who have publicly criticized the former president's best-selling book "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid" for inaccuracies and distorting history. "It comes to the result of deep soul searching and a tremendous amount of angst," said Steve Berman, a member who was appointed six months ago. Berman, an Atlanta commercial real estate developer, said he was led to resign after becoming deeply troubled after reviewing Carter's book, shocked by factual errors and a message that doesn't serve the cause of peace. "We're trying to send a message that the issue of the Middle East is very complicated and complex," Berman said. "There are two narratives that need to be heard." Berman refers to two narratives between the Israelis and Palestinians in contesting one piece of land. "Palestinian leaders have had chances since 1947 to have their own state, including during your own presidency when they snubbed your efforts," the letter reads. The members submitted a joint resignation letter, saying the book confuses opinion with fact. "We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position. This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support. Therefore it is with sadness and regret that we hereby tender our resignation from the Board of Councilors of the Carter Center effective immediately," the letter said. Liane Levetan, a former Georgia state senator who served on the board for about 10 years, said Carter's book "really hurt me." "To me, it's a situation of telling the facts that are the facts. This is not a piece of fiction," Levetan said. "There are some things in life that you just cannot overlook. The truth is something that has got to be told. And certain portions of this book do not tell the truth." Levetan said despite her respect for the Carter Center, she could not remain quiet over concerns of the book. "When you are convinced that there's something that's wrong or not truthful, you can't sit by on the sidelines and let things get by," Levetan said. The list of members resigning includes Alan Abrams, Berman, Michael Coles, Jon Golden, Doug Hertz, Barbara Babbit Kaufman, Levetan, Jeff Levy, Leon Novak, Ambassador William B. Schwartz Jr., William B. Schwartz III, Steve Selig, Cathey Steinberg and Gail Solomon. Another member plans to resign privately, Berman said. The members say the book "portrays the conflict between Israel and her neighbors as a purely one-sided affair with Israel holding all the responsibility for resolving the conflict." "In light of the publication of your latest book 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid' and your subsequent comments made in promoting the book, we can no longer in good conscience continue to serve the Center as members of the Board of Councilors," the letter reads. Carter stands by his book and defends it against what he called "lies" and "distortions" against his book in an op-ed published in the LA Times last month. Carter Center Executive Director John Hardman said the members of the group aren't a governing board or associated with implementing work of the center. "We are grateful to these Board of Councilors members for their years of service and support for The Carter Center in advancing peace and health around the world," Hardman said in a statement. The resignations come after Kenneth Stein, director of the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel of Emory University, resigned in December, saying the book distorts history to shape the reader's opinion to one side of the issue. � Click here to read Dr. Kenneth W. Stein's resignation letter. "I just want to be sure that when people write history, people don't do it for purpose of special pleading," he said. "They write it the way it was. They don't try to shape a person's opinion and slide them down a path in order to come to an inevitable conclusion." Stein said the book contained "factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments." Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights group based in Los Angeles, received more than 23,000 signatures for an online petition urging action against "Carter's one-sided bias against Israel." Hier said he agrees with the 14 members decision to cut ties to the Carter Center because the book offers a distorted view of the Middle East. "I think they did the right thing," Hier said. "I think that the book was unworthy of a former president of the United States." The latest resignation also follows other questions to surface over the book. Last month, Ambassador Dennis Ross, a former Mideast envoy and FOX News foreign affairs analyst, claims maps commissioned and published by him were improperly republished in Carter's book. "I think there should be a correction and an attribution," Ross said. "These were maps that never existed, I created them." After Ross saw the maps in Carter's book, he told his publisher he wanted a correction. When asked if the former president ripped him off, Ross replied, "It sure looks that way." |
look at the last names of the people who resigned.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King look at the last names of the people who resigned. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka OH MY GAWD! SEVERAL PROMINENT ATLANTA JEWS! What's your point, you anti-semite? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka OH MY GAWD! SEVERAL PROMINENT ATLANTA JEWS! What's your point, you anti-semite? |
.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Cyrus is a bad ass, and he has tons of Jewish friends. He's not an anti-semite, he's just not fond of the Zionist death machine you worship . |
what a bunch of pussies to resign when someone had a point of view that may have conflicted with their own. pretty cowardly.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Really? Gee, thanks I feel much better about it. |
.| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Sorry, but the whole "But some of my good friends are Jewish." excuse just doesn't cut it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Without any regard to substance, the first thing he does is the equivalent of saying, "well, there are Jewish people involved, so clearly they are liars and are full of shit." They certainly weren't all Jewish, so why do you think the non-Jews resigned as well? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Do you think they're complicit in some grand scheme? Would you care to actually address the issue as opposed to just blowing it off as some Jew conspiracy? Badass my ass, that was just bad. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Really? Gee, thanks I feel much better about it. Sorry, but the whole "But some of my good friends are Jewish." excuse just doesn't cut it. Without any regard to substance, the first thing he does is the equivalent of saying, "well, there are Jewish people involved, so clearly they are liars and are full of shit." They certainly weren't all Jewish, so why do you think the non-Jews resigned as well? Do you think they're complicit in some grand scheme? Would you care to actually address the issue as opposed to just blowing it off as some Jew conspiracy? Badass my ass, that was just bad. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King Was it a black conspiracy when the African-Americans walked out of Kramers racist show??? |
| quote: |
| With this book... its really sad how these people resigned. Was it an "anti-semetic" book? Did it insult Jews? Why are American jews so insulted by the crticism of Israels actions? |
| quote: |
| GO CARTER GO!!!!!!!!!!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka No, I think they left because the comedian stopped being funny and just decided to throw insults around. I'm not sure why you're equating a comedy routine with a book that is apparently full of inaccuracies. How is this a relevant comparison? What are you getting at? |
| quote: |
| No dipshit, apparently it has a problem with "factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments." Any reason for concern at all? Nah, just blow it off as Jews being dirty Jews. |
| quote: |
Ha! He's still American. Cheer him on! You go girl! |
Thanks for the article.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King Why dont you address my muslim example then? |
| quote: |
| Is it hard to understand? Im not surprised they are jewish. |
| quote: |
| So many books have factual errors.... and copied materials...superficialitlies.. and all the things you claim have made these people so "insulted".... but does is that really a good reason to resign? |
| quote: |
| Why are they mostly jewish? If this was the case.. wouldnt his WHOLE organization resign?? |
| quote: |
| Im not supporting him becuase hes american.. im supporting him becuase he has the guts to actually say what he thinks about ISrael.. in a heavily zionist influenced coutnry |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka You didn't give an example, you provided an irrelevant hypothetical hoping to add weight to your already empty argument. Does the fact that some of them are Jewish have anything to do with the book having factual errors and inaccuracies? Would it matter if they were black midgets? You're simply sidestepping the real issue. So that makes it OK then? If so many books have factual errors and it's okay, how can you have any confidence in any of your views about anything? This is pathetic reasoning and an even more pathetic rationalization. You got me. In my world people think for themselves and make their own decisions. If a person choses to resign that is his or her prerogative. The group think is for commies and socialists. The fact that such a large group stepped down speaks volumes about Carter's book if they felt strongly enough. So you've read the book then? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King Here is the "hypothetical situation" Carter writes a book about Islam.... and states his analysis of the situation.. many muslims resign. GET IT?????? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Yeah, I get that you rationalize your stance by trying to argue that a hypothetical situation would unfold in a specific way according to your belief system when you have no actual situation to fall back on to prove your point. I get that instead of trying to actually prove your point by citing factual accuracies in the book where the critics claim there are falsehoods, you would rather depend on a hypothetical situation that is meaningless to this discussion. Yeah, I get it now. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King every fuckin book on this issue has "falsifications" depending on which side you stand on. |
, but you'd still expect something more credible from such a person, generally speaking.| quote: |
| And there are just as many supporters of the book that back up his claims. SO whats your point? Why are you taking the side of the critics that just point out falsifications without them actually proving Carter wrong? |
| quote: |
| This note is to inform you that yesterday, I sent letters to President Jimmy Carter, Emory University President Jim Wagner, and Dr. John Hardman, Executive Director of the Carter Center resigning my position, effectively immediately, as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University. This ends my 23 year association with an institution that in some small way I helped shape and develop. My joint academic position in Emory College in the History and Political Science Departments, and, as Director of the Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel remains unchanged. Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center and, act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case. President Carter has intermittently continued to come to the Arab-Israeli Conflict class I teach in Emory College. He gives undergraduate students a fine first hand recollection of the Begin-Sadat negotiations of the late 1970s. Since I left the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East program of the Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center Fellow. For the record, I had nothing to do with the research, preparation, writing, or review of President Carter's recent publication. Any material which he used from the book we did together in 1984, The Blood of Abraham, he used unilaterally. President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook.Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins. The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center's early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book. I can not allow that impression to stand. Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to inform students and the general public about the history and politics of Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures, and in OPED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history must presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way we wish it to be. In closing, let me thank you for your friendship, past and continuing support for ISMI, and to Emory College. Let me also wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season, and a healthy and productive new year. As ever, Ken Dr. Kenneth W. Stein, Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History, Political Science, and Israeli Studies, Director, Middle East Research Program and Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel Atlanta, Georgia |
| quote: |
| Its NOT SURPRISING THAT THEY ARE JEWISH AND WOULD RESIGN |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Yeah, I get that you rationalize your stance by trying to argue that a hypothetical situation would unfold in a specific way according to your belief system when you have no actual situation to fall back on to prove your point. I get that instead of trying to actually prove your point by citing factual accuracies in the book where the critics claim there are falsehoods, you would rather depend on a hypothetical situation that is meaningless to this discussion. Yeah, I get it now. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Nautilus And I've yet to read where you have cited these specific "egregious errors and polemical conclusions" yourself. |
| quote: |
In a column published in last week's Boston Globe, former US president Jimmy Carter complained that ever since his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid came out, he has been called "a liar, plagiarist, anti-Semite, racist, bigot, ignorant, etc." I have not read the book. But the column alone proves that some of those epithets are justified. For instance, Carter complains that "an enormous wall snakes through � what is left of the West Bank � obviously designed to acquire more property and protect the Israeli colonies already built." Aside from the misleading terminology (the barrier is mostly fence, not wall) and the false implication of massive annexation (more than 90 percent of the West Bank remains on the Palestinian side), there is an obvious problem with his "obvious" explanation of the fence's objective: Not only does Israel claim that its purpose is stopping suicide bombers, but the evidence supports that claim. First, the fence was only inaugurated two years into the intifada, as Israel's death toll from terror attacks approached the 500 mark. Carter not only fails to mention this, he disingenuously implies that it has existed for decades by preceding his diatribe with the phrase "for 39 years, Israel has occupied Palestinian land..." Second, Israeli casualties of Palestinian terror have declined by almost 50 percent a year since construction began in 2002, indicating that the fence is in fact serving its stated defensive purpose. To obscure this inconvenient fact, Carter offers an astounding alternative explanation: "Hamas declared a unilateral cease-fire in August 2004 � which they claim is the reason for reductions in casualties to Israeli citizens." Even overlooking the six-month inaccuracy - Hamas announced the "lull" only in February 2005 - this "explanation" ignores the fact that the drop in casualties began fully two years earlier, following Operation Defensive Shield in spring 2002. Thus by the intifada's third year, October 2002 through September 2003, the Israeli death toll was already a whopping 47% lower than the second year's figure. EVEN MORE astonishing, however, is Carter's disregard for the fact that Hamas has proudly claimed credit for various deadly attacks even since February 2005 - including the firing of hundreds of rockets at southern Israel and the cross-border raid that kidnapped one soldier and killed two this past June. Then there is Carter's claim that "Mahmoud Abbas ... has sought to negotiate with Israel for almost six years, without success. Hamas leaders support such negotiations, promising to accept the results if approved by a Palestinian referendum." Carter somehow neglects to mention that for four of those six years, the Palestinian Authority's leader was not Abbas, but Yasser Arafat - who had already rejected an offer of a Palestinian state in some 95% of the territories, including east Jerusalem, in July 2000, and underscored his rejection by launching the intifada, which has thus far claimed over 1,100 Israeli lives. Carter also neglects to mention that a year after Arafat's death, Palestinian voters ousted Abbas's party and elected Hamas, which openly advocates Israel's eradication. Most astonishing, however, is his falsification of Hamas's position. Hamas indeed has no problem with letting Abbas negotiate further Israeli withdrawals. But Carter neglects to mention the caveat that Hamas leaders reiterate almost daily: The most they are willing to offer - in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, plus a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees - is a multiyear truce, after which they will resume trying to eradicate Israel. Consider, for instance, PA Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar's statement of his party's position in October: "We will never recognize Israel, and the end of the Zionists will be like the end of the Crusaders, Persians and British... We want all of Palestine, every centimeter, from the sea to the river, from Rosh Hanikra to Rafah. If we can establish a state in the 1967 borders we will do so, but that does not mean we will give up our right to a centimeter of the land of Palestine." Carter can hardly be ignorant of these statements, because unlike Arafat - who reserved such comments for the Arabic-language media - Hamas leaders obligingly repeat them for the English-language press. So with the party that controls the PA openly declaring its commitment to Israel's destruction, just what does Carter think there is to negotiate about? THEN THERE is Carter's complaint that "food supplies in Gaza [are] equivalent to those among the poorest families in sub-Sahara Africa," due to "economic restrictions imposed on [the Palestinians] by Israel and the United States because 42 percent voted for Hamas candidates in this year's election." That "42%" is an ingenious touch, allowing him to omit the fact that Hamas won an absolute parliamentary majority. He also neglects to mention Hamas's open advocacy of Israel's destruction, or that the main "economic restriction" imposed by Israel and the US was halting fund transfers to the Hamas government. All this enables him to avoid uncomfortable questions, such as why either Jerusalem or Washington should transfer money to a government that openly seeks Israel's eradication. His touching comparison to sub-Sahara Africa also ignores the fact that even after Hamas's election, Palestinians remain the largest per-capita recipients of international aid in the world. Indeed, the PA's largest donor, the European Union, increased aid to the Palestinians by 27% this year, to $865 million. The only difference is that instead of going to the Hamas government, this money is being funneled through Abbas and organizations such as UNRWA. If it is not reaching needy Palestinians, that is hardly Israel's doing. Finally, there is Carter's blithe claim that "an overwhelming majority" of Palestinians want peace. Given repeated polls showing that, for instance, 67% of Palestinians support Hamas's refusal to recognize Israel, 63% support bombarding Israeli cities with rockets, 57% support suicide bombings against Israeli civilians and 75% favor kidnapping Israeli soldiers, it is hard to know on what Carter bases this optimism. But of course, that question presumes that Carter cares about the facts. His entire column says otherwise. |
Shakka, do you even know what the Carter Center's mission is? The fact that anyone resigned over a bad fact in a book is, well, political, and, if you know the purpose of the center that they support, pretty pathetic.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Shakka, do you even know what the Carter Center's mission is? The fact that anyone resigned over a bad fact in a book is, well, political, and, if you know the purpose of the center that they support, pretty pathetic. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Shakka, do you even know what the Carter Center's mission is? The fact that anyone resigned over a bad fact in a book is, well, political, and, if you know the purpose of the center that they support, pretty pathetic. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.