Sorry TOO HOT NOT to move back to the front page. — the Management

Reuters – 17 Dec 2006:

A new book by Jimmy Carter in which he compares Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to South Africa’s Apartheid system has sparked a bitter debate over the former U.S. president’s reputation as a peacemaker.

Jewish groups have expressed outrage at the book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” arguing its comparison of Israel to the racist South African regime could undermine the perception of Israel’s legitimacy.

Carter, 82, has been dogged by protests during a promotional tour and Ken Stein, a long-time advisor on Middle East issues who was also the first executive director at the Carter Center in Atlanta, resigned over the book’s content.

In an interview with Reuters, Stein cited a passage from the book that said it was imperative for Arabs and Palestinians to “make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for peace are accepted by Israel.

Stein said: “Does that mean killing Jews is legitimate? Did I misread this? I don’t think so. If he wrote it, he is endorsing violence, which is not the original purpose of the Carter Center.”


You think Jimmy has been spending too much time with Mel?!

Update: Carter responds to the criticism here.



  1. Fed up says:

    I think the comment about Dvorak trying to bump up his hits is right on. I started coming here for the tech articles but have noticed a subtle shift in content.

    I, for one, won’t be back. There are too many sites that provide good tech info without the trolls throwing chum in the water to attract Jewish sharks.

    It’s well know that anything slightly anti-Israel will attract the attention of the pro-Israel crowd to drown out the agreeing voices giving a skewed view of popular opinion.

  2. ethanol says:

    #64 (BW),

    Wow! Now you start referring to conspiracy theorists who think the CIA and Mossad are who attacked on 9/11.
    Nice…

  3. Ron says:

    64. Ever notice how the left loves conspiracy theories and can’t wait to put on a swastika and blame everything on Jews? I have been called a Nazi, fascist, and now a Jew because I am a conservative. Make up your minds lefties

  4. douglas levi says:

    hey John,
    your picture of carter is totally off base and is uncalled for. not only does it show you didn’t read the book, or Carter’s response, but you have also invoked GODWIN’S LAW. you have now lost.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

  5. Jägermeister says:

    Atheist or not SN, you should know better than linking Carter with Mel Gibson’s tirade. Carter has put a lot of thoughts and knowledge into his book. And from what I’ve read and seen, he’s not far from the truth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

  6. SN says:

    #70 “Atheist or not SN, you should know better than linking Carter with Mel Gibson’s tirade.”

    I’ll say it again… Mel blamed Jews for all the wars while Jimmy blames Jews for all the Islamic terrorism. The only difference is that Mel apologized.

  7. Jägermeister says:

    #73

    Why should Carter apologize? There’s a great degree of truth in what he claims.

  8. SN says:

    #74 “Why should Carter apologize? There’s a great degree of truth in what he claims.”

    So you agree that Islamic terrorists should “end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for peace are accepted by Israel.”

    I agree that Israel should give back Palestine. But to say that the Arab community should only stop terrorism when that occurs is ludicrous.

    What Carter is saying is that Israel’s occupation justifies Islamic terrorism. Do you really think it’ll end when Palestine is free? I personally think we could put every Jewish person on a space ship and launch them into space and Islamic terrorism would continue. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’ll be proved wrong one day. But I doubt that giving back Palestine will have any affect on terrorism.

    If you disagree, please explain to me what Theo van Gogh had to do with the occupation of Palestine?!

  9. Jägermeister says:

    #75

    The point Carter makes is that if Israel doesn’t want to play along, then why should their opponent have to. And as for the suicide bombers. The thing is that these Muslims don’t have air planes and attack helicopters to attack the Israelis, so they use what they can to get back at them. Btw… Which is most cowardly… dropping a precision bomb from high above or blowing yourself up with what you consider the enemy?

    And as for the stopping of terrorism. Are you sure he meant terrorism in the whole world or just terrorism against Israelis? I’ve not read his book, so I do not know.

  10. SN says:

    #76 “Are you sure he meant terrorism in the whole world or just terrorism against Israelis?”

    Good point. I’m assuming all Islamic terrorism. Mostly because I would not consider any violence in Palestine to be terrorism. When your land is occupied and you fight back, that’s called war, not terrorism.

    Terrorism is when you kill people for no other reason than to terrorize, e.g., Theo van Gogh and the victims of 9/11.

  11. Jägermeister says:

    #77 – Terrorism is when you kill people for no other reason than to terrorize, e.g., Theo van Gogh and the victims of 9/11.

    I fully agree with your statement.

  12. Ari says:

    I salute Carter for the guts to come up with such a book in the US, especially if you are a former president with a lot to lose. Unfortunately, since 9/11 the US has failed to address the root causes of terrorism: support of corrupt oligarchies that rule failed economies over the world’s richest real estate and support of an apartheid, denigrating and occupying state in Palestine.
    The terrorists actually have political goals and you can’t just blow them away with jets. The sooner Americans acknowledge this dimension of terrorism the better. Yes terrorists are crazy, but craziness is just a means to an end, usually the only one they can afford because of force asymmetry.

  13. Smith says:

    I don’t much care about who did what to whom sixty years ago; what’s done is done and all of those responsible are dead.

    But deliberately targeting children for death is WRONG. I have only contempt for those that defend the actions of terrorists.

    I do not approve of many actions by Israel. But from my observations, everytime Israel makes concensions and the area begins to settle down, some terrorist faction blows up a bus to fan the flames. These factions do not want to reach some accord with Jews, they only want them dead. And everytime Israel strikes back, the world condems them — an attitude I find difficult to understand. I guess if France can live wih a couple hundred cars being burned every week from rioters, then Israel should just suck it up and ignore the deaths of their children.

  14. Ron says:

    82.
    Don’t leave out his visit to Uncle Fidel Castro and his praise of Hugo Chavez, two more paragons of freedom and democracy.

  15. Tom 2 says:

    There goes his presidential chances, what a shame.

  16. Nick says:

    The man was an embarassment as a president, and constantly undermines this country as an ex-president. I’m not a pro-Israel zealot but this ‘war’ does not have a simple nor quick solution. History has been unfair to America by not exposing just how inept this man was as a president.

  17. mxpwr03 says:

    While Jimmy Carter may have failed (failed in my opinion) in the realms of foreign policy, domestic policy, & non-fiction books, he does write some fascinating children’s books. Some people are just late bloomers, it is just unfortunate he couldn’t find his real talent until after his tour in the White House.

  18. Ballenger says:

    On 87, just curious where you got that information on the Carter Center. If it is in fact true, you should post your sources. My indirect experience with Carter goes back to the time before he was the GA Governor and clandestine just isn’t his style. In fact, his directness in a lot of cases was the reason for his being seen as politically amateurish. At least as politicians go, he is one of the least full of crap guys around. Which still leaves room for a fair amount of crap. Also, that’s assuming you believe having a differing opinion doesn’t make someone “full of crap” and just means you disagree.

  19. Ron says:

    90. Here it is straight from the Carter Center

    If you don’t think Hugo Chavez is a thug you are just an idiot

  20. Ballenger says:

    Thanks for linking that. Chavez being or not being a thug is beside the point here. If dealing with thugs was out of scope in International Relations the State Department could be run with 20 people and an answer machine. The quote below sounds a little different than your comment of “chavez paid twice the carter Center to be a “facilitator” in the Venezuelan recall in 2004 and the last election”.

    “How is The Carter Center involved in the recall effort?
    Because The Carter Center and the OAS had been working as facilitators and mediators, the electoral board asked both–the two organizations with election experience–to monitor the recall effort. We’ve never observed a recall referendum before, so this is a new process for us. It also has been a new process for Venezuela, and it’s been quite a learning experience all around.”

    And, I probably am an idiot from time to time. But not today, and not on this one. Your implication and what the website states are not one in the same. Let’s move on, there are still many new things we can disagree on.

  21. Ron says:

    It was pedro’s implication, not mine, but I do agree with it. Running the State Department with 20 people and an answering machine isn’t a bad idea. Since the end of the Cold War, we really don’t have nearly the need to deal with thugs anymore since most of the ones we dealt with were in efforts to stop the Soviet Union (who were worse. Enemy of my enemy…)
    As for Carter this shows more of his willingness to ‘cuddle up’ with communist dictators (Castro, Chavez) and other assorted anti-American tyrants (Arafat, Khomeini, and Hamas). It also highlights his anti-American bias, when he claims Chavez runs fair elections and the US does not.

  22. Odyssey67 says:

    You ‘anti-Carter’ types are funny. I know your probably having a ball, getting so frothy again over a democrat you can sink your teeth into seemingly without remorse, but really fellas … You do realize the 1980 election is over, right?

    Well, ok – you seem to be having so much fun, how can I resist wading into the kiddie pool for a while? 😉

    The cold fact is, Carter was twice the president of any we’ve had since JFK. He understood the problems we faced in the future, did his best to solve them as president without breaking laws or limiting freedoms domestically, and did even more practical good as a private citizen later on. No other ex-president in the 20th century, except maybe T. Roosevelt, has done so much with his life. The fact that so many here are running him down is evidence that the Culture Wars of that era are like Mad Cow disease – still turning minds to mush.

    I mean, what is it with you people? Are you looking for someone to blame for America’s late 70’s oil shock? LBJ & Nixon set that chain of events in motion. At least carter had enough sense to suggest we get off foriegn oil in the first place, and took the only good step we’ve ever seen come out of government since (the CAFE standards) to do that.

    Do you hate him for not sending the US Olympic team to Moscow in 1980, as a protest against the Soviets invading Afghanistan? Guess what – the USSR invading that country set yet ANOTHER chain of events in motion that lead directly to the 9/11 attacks. Had enough other countries followed Carter’s lead then, and enough supposedly patriotic Americans supported him at home in the effort, maybe Breshnev could have been persuaded to back out before things spiralled into the furball we have today.

    Speaking of furballs, Carter was the first to actually get the Arabs and the Jews to actually agree on anything! Hows that for a tough job? Could you do it? Had Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II put anything like the importance Carter did on that region of the world, our news cycle would certainly be a lot calmer today.

    But maybe you just want someone to blame for the Iran Hostage Crisis. That’s Carter’s largest supposed failing, right? Well, thanks to the FOIA, we know now that Eisenhower’s CIA overthrew the duly elected government of Iran in the 50s & put the dictatorial and repressive Shah in it’s place, and all just to keep US & British private oil companys happy. The Iranian people, spured on by a religious fanatic for the next two decades, eventually had a backlash. They knew who had been responsible for their loss of soveriegnty AND freedom – the US govt. So when they finally shook the Shah off their collective backs, they went looking for the most obvious symbol of that govt – our embassy – to take a little revenge. It was all a mess, yet oh so predictable (and the same shit is going to run down our collars in the NEXT 30 years thanks to Bush jr making the same damn mistake). Yet not a single US citizen back then was aware of what set the Iranans off. There was no clue – everyone just hated Carter for not nuking them. And Carter, the poor bastard, had nothing to do with it; he just happened to be president when it all fell apart. Despite the hostages coming home right after the swearing in of Reagan, we now know it was Carter’s tireless negotiations that got them home.

    I didn’t like Carter’s speeches (boooring) or, very often, his specific solutions to problems he tried to solve (usualy too technical). But for his insight and vision and dedication to actually solve the problems the US – indeed the world – faced, he had no peer then, and still does not today.

    Pick up a history book you boobs. Preferably one not written by a brainless Neocon. It not only makes for wonderful reading, but you might even get a few shriveled neurons to start firing again.

    Out.

  23. Odyssey67 says:

    Oh, and since this posteed article was about his book in the first place, I’ll just say this:

    I have no idea how accurate Carter is when he says the Israelis are committing Aparteid-like atrocities in the occupied territories. Certainly stranger things have happened than an occupying army committing such acts. But given his track record so far, if Carter is raising the alarm then we could do a damn site worse than by not listening to him.

    But if history is any guide, we won’t – and then in 50 years time realize he was right all along.

    NOW I’m done 😉

  24. TJGeezer says:

    #95 and #96 – Thanks. Now I don’t have to try to say the same things half as eloquently.

    I’m with you. If Carter is raising an alarm, people should listen. He’s not a man with hidden agendas and he knows a LOT about that conflict.

  25. Mr. Fusion says:

    Ron, you are an idiot. Plain and simple. Since you don’t understand a jihad, here is a definition.
    2.jihad – a holy struggle or striving by a Muslim for a moral or spiritual or political goal
    http://tinyurl.com/y5kpsl

    Pedro, C’mon man, I know you are better then that.

    SN & Jägermeister, very interesting discussion, credit to both of you for well made points. I really enjoyed the intelligent exchange. And SN, you do have some beliefs and most of them I admire.

    Named, two comments. First, You can’t have a battle of wits with an unarmed enemy. Second, didn’t you see the sign “Don’t feed the trolls”. I guess a third would be “You can’t fly like an eagle when you’re surrounded by turkeys”. You did good my friend.

    Odyssey67, very well put point in #95. I couldn’t have said it half as well on my best day if I had a lot of help.

  26. ECA says:

    98,
    He ISNT on either side, thats the point..And it ISNT jews, its Isreal..
    Its certain groups that are causing MOSt of the problems.
    You dont point fingers at a crowd, and say “THEY DID IT”…
    Its the HARDCORES… the rest are just standing around.

  27. JimS says:

    As others have stated, thank you Odyssey67, I couldn’t have said it half as eloquently myself.

    When Jimmy Carter was president, I thought he was the worse one ever. I come from a republican family, and live in a very conservative small town. I wasn’t near smart enough to really understand his actions at the time. Of course, I turned ten years old near the end of ’73.

    I’m no democrat, but Jimmy Carter is, in my opinion, the only honorable man that has held the office of president, in these United States, during my lifetime. He probably had the highest IQ of any president for at least that long.

    Jimmy Carter is not now, nor has he ever been, a great politician.

    It is about time that a devout Christian and American, with enough clout to get a little media attention, stood up and called Israel to the rug, over their continued sinful actions. Hopefully, other devout Christian and Jewish leaders who also oppose Israel’s actions will find the courage to stand and be heard.

    It seems to me, that a devout Christian or Jew, should probably believe in their own religious teachings. They believe that the Jews are the chosen people. That God entered into an agreement, a covenant with them, in which he bestowed upon them and their descendants, the Promised Land. He asked in return only, that they live by his tenants. Further, the only time they have had war with their neighbors is during the times that they and or their leaders have strayed from the agreed upon tenants. This is the same God who freed the Jews, parted the Red Sea, and kept them alive for 40 years as they wondered through the desert in search of the Promised Land. He doesn’t need us meddling in it, he’s mighty enough to take care of it himself. O’ Ye of little faith, don’t you believe that the Almighty Father, is honorable or powerful enough to keep his promise?

    I think it’s time for the Jews to straighten up and fly right, in the eyes of the Lord, so that we can put this incessant conflict to rest

  28. Ron says:

    Mr. Fusion, once again you show your ignorance.

    Look up jihad in a REAL dictionary, and let’s use the REAL definition, not the new popular slang one. I would try the American Heritage Dictionary: (“jihad.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.) That’s from a BOOK, remember them?
    jihad also je•had (jĭ-häd’) Pronunciation Key
    n.

    1. Islam An individual’s striving for spiritual self-perfection.
    2. Islam A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.
    3. A crusade or struggle: “The war against smoking is turning into a jihad against people who smoke” (Fortune).

    Notice the ISLAMIC definition, but maybe Arafat was Catholic? Also I like how you praise a moron (Named) who gets his information from a website that blames the Jews for the Holocaust. See posting # 62. Liberalism uber allis

    In the movies, you put garbage into Mr. Fusion and you get energy out, here, Mr. Fusion puts energy in and gets garbage out.

  29. Mucous says:

    Let’s see, ignoring everything else, under Carter we got the start of Econo-crapboxes and a 55mph speed limit. Both of those alone warrant capital punishment. The American way is forward not backward.

  30. Moral Volcano says:

    7. h, the fact that it’s the only democracy in the middle east has nothing to do with it!

    Nice logic. I think Americans apply it to themselves for the sins they have committed all over the world from Philipines to Vietname to Iraq and Afghanistan

    21 Try living in an Islamic and marrying if you are not a Muslim.
    Different culture have different levels of tolerance for different things. In the U.S., if you mock Christianity, you get a standing ovation. If you criticize Israel’s policy, you are branded a Nazi.

    35. Allow me to answer who Israel invaded in 1948, 1968, and 1972. The answer is no one. Israel was invaded by its Arab neighbors. Also notice how Jordan or any other Arab country did not give any land to their “Palestinian brothers

    Israelis are recent immigrants from Europe. They displaced Palestinians who lived there over a thousand years when they got the U.N. partition their country into two unequal halves with Jews getting the bigger portion when they only owned 6% of the land. (Holocaust was a crime committed in Europe and had to be solved there not in Palestine. It is not their problem.)

    If Jordan and other countries had given land to their brothers then Israel’s crime would have been forgotten.


3

Bad Behavior has blocked 4464 access attempts in the last 7 days.